COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION

OF THE

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

Held on Monday, November 17th, 1884, and following days.

BEFORE the RIGHT HON. GEORGE SWAN NOTTAGE, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; Sir JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN, Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; Sir THOMAS GABRIEL , Bart., DAVID HENRY STONE Esq., and Sir HENRY EDMUND KNIGHT , Knt., Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q.C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; JOHN STAPLES , Esq., Sir REGINALD HANSON , Knt., POLYDORE DE KEYSER , Esq., HENRY AARON ISAACS , Esq., and DAVID EVANS , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; Sir WILLIAM THOMAS CHARLEY , Knt., Q.C., D.C.L., Common Serjeant of the said City; and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR , Esq., LL. D., Judge of the Sheriff's Court: Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer, and General Gaol Delivery, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—a dagger (†) that they are known to be the associate of bad characters—the figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.

OLD COURT.—Monday, November 17th, 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18841117-1

1. CHARLES ROBINSON (45) was indicted for a robbery with violence on James Kenyon and stealing 1s. 8d.

MR. LILLEYProsecuted; MR. PURCELLDefended.

JAMES KENYON . I am a miner, and have been living at Oldham, Lancashire—on 15th July I was passing through Finchley on the highway coming to London—from 10.30 to 10.40 in the evening I went into the Cricketers beerhouse, North Finchley, where I saw the prisoner and a man whose name I do not know—the prisoner was making a big noise and drinking—nothing passed between him and me—I left near on 11 o'clock, before the prisoner—I was perfectly sober—I had about 2s. or 3s. in my possession—the prisoner followed close after me—I turned towards London, where I was going—when I got out and had come to the highway the prisoner caught hold of my arm—the public-house stands little off the highway—I said to him "You go about your business and I will go about mine, I don't want to have anything to do with you"—he kept following me along, and I said "Go on," and he left me for a bit; and when I got a little distance away as I was passing a road going to the left he tried to pull me down there—there was a ditch down there—he said "You must go down this road"—I said "I know my way is on the high road"—he tried to throw me in the ditch—we had a scuffle—I got away from him and told him to go away—I went on my proper road and never thought of his following me, and when I got about 50 yards on the road I was caught by the neck suddenly and got two or three kicks or knocks and I was knocked down and then I got up again—I told him to leave me alone and go on, and then I got some more severe knocks, and my legs went from under me and I fainted away—I don't knew how I was knocked down—I had got up partially and was kicked in the legs and knocked down again—I could not say how many times I was kicked—the next morning you could see places on my shins and back—I cried "Police" and "Murder"—policeman came to my assistance afterwards—the prisoner had gone

away—I fainted twice—I gave the policeman some information—he went away and brought the prisoner back—I had then recovered my senses—the policeman said "Do you know that man?"—I said "Yes, that is the man that has ill-used me and broke my legs and ankle"—my clothes were covered with dirt all over—one of my waistcoat pockets was pulled out—I missed 1s. 8d. as nearly as I could guess—I knew my leg was broken because I could not lift it, and my ankle—I was taken into the Infirmary at Barnet, and I stopped inside the gate till next morning and then I was put into the Infirmary and I lay there from the Tuesday to the Sunday, and then they cut off my sock, and my foot was black, and they pulled my leg into its place, but they did not set my ankle right—I do not know how long I was with the prisoner in the public-house, I had nothing to do with him there, he was only a yard and a half from me, he was in view during the 20 minutes or half hour I was there—I remained in the hospital till 2nd October—I did not take any of my money out at the public-house—I had last seen it was safe when on the road—I had not examined my pockets before leaving the public-house.

Cross-examined. I had a walking stick when I went into the public-house—I did not offer it for sale for fourpence—a man on my right who gave me something to drink took a fancy to it, and I said "You can have it if you have a fancy for it"—I paid for nothing in the public-house—I had no bread and cheese or anything to eat—I had something to drink with the other man—I did not say directly I went into the public-house that I had no money to get anything to eat or drink—that was the man (Retchless who was called into Court) who gave me a drink and to whom I gave my stick—I did not say before the Magistrate that Retchless gave me a pennyworth of bread and cheese and ale, or that I sold him my stick for fourpence—I had come from Oldham, through Manchester, Derby, the Duke of Devonshire's seat and ground—I did not come out of the public-house arm-in-arm with Retchless, he did not come out with me—I said I might have had about two shillings in my pocket—I had not looked at the contents of my pocket since I had dinner by the wayside—the prisoner did not tell me before I came out that he would show me a place where I could lie down—he said nothing of the sort in Retchless's presence—the prisoner had drink in him—the first time he knocked me down and tried to get me into the ditch—he gave me a kick, and I rolled over into the ditch—I don't know that he was afterwards found lying in another ditch a little way off—he did not ask me for any money—when the policeman came up all I charged him with was assaulting and ill-using me, and when the policeman asked me if I had lost anything I said, "I have lost some money from my pockets, about 1s. 8d."—I did not see him take it, and thought I had lost it—I was not able to go to the police-court till August or September, some months afterwards—the prisoner was waiting in custody the whole time.

GEORGE RETCHLESS . On 15th July last I was haymaking, and about half-past 10 or a quarter to 11 o'clock in the evening I was in the Cricketers at Finchley, where I saw the prisoner and prosecutor—they were very civil in the house—I left at 11 o'clock, turning-out time—the prisoner and prosecutor went out, and I followed close on them all the way—they turned down on the left-hand and a struggle took place between the two—I did not see the prisoner do or say anything, nor the

prosecutor say anything before the struggle took place—when struggling the prosecutor said "Be a man and leave me alone"—the prisoner followed him back to the London Road and went into him again—the prosecutor said "You have broken my leg"—the prisoner said "You b,—I will murder you"—I went to get a police-officer; I met one coming up, gave him information, and saw him taking the prisoner away to Finchley while I waited with the prosecutor—I saw he was very injured—they took him away in a cab—I cannot say if he was in a fainting state when I was gone for the constable.

Cross-examined. I was in the public-house when the prosecutor came in—the first thing he said was to offer his stick for sale for fourpence—I gave him half a pint of beer—the prisoner asked him to drink once or twice out of a quart mug—he said he came from Lancashire, I don't think he appeared very tired or hungry—I thought him a fitting object for my kindness—he had no bread and cheese—I was talking to friends—we came out as near together as we could and I was close behind the whole time—the prisoner was not so drunk as not to know what he was doing—the prosecutor said he had no home to go to and the prisoner offered to take him to some place where he could lie down—the prosecutor did not put his hands in his pockets and show a lot of money, he was not wearing a gold watch and chain or jewellery—the first thing I saw was the struggle, I don't know how it began—I saw them knocking one another about, and the prosecutor was under the hedge where the constable left him.

Re-examined. I did not see Robinson strike a blow—I had no place to sleep in that night—I was following to lie down with the prosecutor.

JOSEPH WEBB (Policeman). I am stationed at Finchley—at about 11 o'clock on the night of 15th July I was on duty in the High Road, Finchley, near the Cricketers beerhouse—I heard cries of police and ran to where they came from, and about 160 yards down the road I found the prosecutor lying in the middle of the road insensible—I asked him what was the matter—he was groaning—he gave me information; he did not describe any one—I lifted him to the side of the road and sent for a doctor, who came in two or three minutes—Retchless was there—I then went in search of the prisoner, and found him lying in Colney Hatch Lane, at the side of the road—I took him back to where the prosecutor was lying—he had recovered from his insensibility, and when he saw the prisoner he said "That is the man that did it"—I searched the prisoner and found on him 2s. 5 1/2 d., and I then took him to the station—the prosecutor's waistcoat pocket was torn—I lifted him to the side of the road, and he was afterwards taken to the infirmary—he made no statement to me—I took the prisoner into custody from what I had heard from Retchless—I asked the prosecutor in the prisoner's presence, when I had brought him back, how much he had lost, and he said he had lost 1s. 8d.—the prosecutor was taken to the hospital on the 15th, the same night—there is no doctor in attendance.

JOSHUA TYRRELL (Policeman S 139). At 2 o'clock on the morning of Wednesday, the 16th, I was on duty at the police-station, when the prisoner was given into my custody—he was taken to Highgate—he had been drinking, but was not so drunk as not to know what he was about.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I am not guilty. I was so drunk I don't know what happened."

GUILTY** of assault with intent to rob. — Fourteen Months' Hard Labour. There was another indictment against the prisoner for an assault on the police.

Reference Number: t18841117-2

2. JAMES PAULETT CARGILL (38) PLEADED GUILTY to forging and uttering an endorsement on an order for the payment of 90l. 7s. 5d. with intent to defraud; also to stealing a cheque for 90l. 7s. 5d., belonging to David Martin and another, his masters.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Monday, November 17th, 1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18841117-3

3. GEORGE HARRIS (41) and ROBERT CRISP (47) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously uttering counterfeit coin; and, together with JOHN SMITH (45) , to unlawfully uttering and possessing counterfeit coin.

CRISP alsoPLEADED GUILTYto a conviction of felony in January, 1884, in the name of George Smith, and HARRIS to one in June, 1882, in the name of John Pickering. HARRIS and CRISP— Two Years' Hard labour each. SMITH— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18841117-4

4. JOHN FLETCHER (16) to unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin. He received a good character from his master, who offered to take him back into his employment.— To enter into recognisances to come up for judgment if called on. And [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t18841117-5

5. GEORGE MORLEY (27) to two indictments for stealing letters containing; postage-stamps, he being employed in the Post-office.— Five Tears' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t18841117-6

6. EDWARD HAWLEY (20) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYDandWILKINSONProsecuted,

GEORGE GAPPER . I am assistant to Thomas McQueechy, a draper, of 135, Church Street, Paddington—on 6th October I was outside the shop, and sold the prisoner a handkerchief, price 2 3/4 d.—he gave me a half-crown, I gave him the change, and he left—about 10 minutes afterwards I went to give change from the bag, and I found the half-crown was bad—I gave it to the police; this is it (produced).

JOHN CADY (Police Sergeant D). I received this half-crown from Gapper, with a description of the prisoner, on the 6th October—on Oct. 17th I placed the prisoner with several others, and Gapper identified him—he said "I bought the handkerchief for 2 3/4 d.; I know nothing about the counterfeit half-crown"—he was then further charged with uttering a bad half-crown previously.

GEORGE WILLIAMS . I am a dairyman, of 30, St. Mary's Terrace, Paddington—on October 9th the prisoner came in for a glass of milk, and put down a penny, which he picked up again and put down this half-crown (produced)—I broke it in front of him in the tester—I said at the station that he had put down a penny and picked it up and put down a half-crown; he said "Don't say that, give us a chance."

THOMAS MARNEY (Policeman X 233). On 9th October, about 7 p.m., Williams brought the prisoner to Paddington Station and charged him with uttering a bad half-crown, which he put down, and said that he had first put down a penny—the prisoner said "Don't say that, give us a chance"—I found on him a florin and five shillings good money, and a metal chain—Williams put down the broken half-crown, and the prisoner said "I did not know it was bad, I took it somewhere, I don't know where"—he gave a correct address.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am examiner of coins to Her Majesty's Mint—these two half-crowns are bad, and from the same mould.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I bought the handkerchief and gave him a half-crown, which I believed was a good half-crown."

He repeated the same statement in his defence, and added that he got both coins in change for a half-sovereign.

GUILTYof the second uttering. — Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18841117-7

7. ALICE JOHNSON (22) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYDandWILKINSONProsecuted.

MARIA WADE . I am a widow, and keep a public-house at 113, Hanbury Street, Mile End—On 14th October, about 10.10 p.m., I served the prisoner with twopennyworth of gin—she gave me a half-crown; I gave her 2s. 4d. change—after she left I found it was bad, and laid it on a shelf by itself—about half an hour afterwards my daughter showed me another half-crown, and I went into the bar and saw the prisoner there again—I said "You are the one that passed a bad half-crown half an hour ago"—she said "No, I have not been in the house before"—I gave her in charge with both half-crowns; these are them (produced).

ANNIE WADE . I am the daughter of the last witness—on 14th October, about 10 p.m., I was serving at the bar, and the prisoner came in for twopennyworth of whisky cold, and. put down half-a-crown—I said "I think this is a bad one," and took it to my mother—I heard their conversation—what my mother has stated is correct.

GEORE NEAVE (Policeman H 125), On 14th October the prisoner was given into my custody for passing two bad half-crowns—she said "Only one; I passed one, I never passed the other; I never was in the house before in my life"—Mrs. Wade handed me these two half-crowns—I marked them—next morning, just before we went to the Court, the prisoner said "Mrs. Wade made a mistake last night"—I said "How is that?"—she said "I asked for two of whisky last night, I did not ask for two of gin"—I said "You were in the house a second time, then"—she said "Yes, I was"—only an empty purse was found on her.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These two half-crowns are bad, and from the same mould.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I am an unfortunate, and I went with two men, and they gave me the two half-crowns. I left them and went for a drink."

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18841117-8

8. MARY SEYMOUR (30) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYDandWILKINSONProsecuted.

HELEN STRINGER . I am barmaid at the Old Shades, Charing Cross—on 14th October, about 2.50 p.m., the prisoner came in for twopennyworth of gin—she gave me a florin, and I gave her 1s. 10d. change, and she left—I laid the florin at the back by itself where we always put florins—Mr. Bradshaw called my attention to it shortly afterwards, and I put it between my teeth and found it was bad, it bent—this is it (produced); it remained on the shelf till I gave it to the police—on 28th October the prisoner came in again—I did not serve her, but I recognized her as soon as I saw her, and made a communication to Mr. Bradshaw.

HENRY EDWARD BRADSHAW . I live at the Old Shades, Charing Cross—on 28th October the prisoner came in about 4 p.m. for tnreepennyworth of brandy, and gave me a bad half-crown—Stringer spoke to me, and I spoke to my father and sent for a constable, and gave him the half-crown—the prisoner said she did not know it was bad, and gave me a good shilling—I gave her 9d. change, but not till after the policeman came, or she would have gone away.

HENRY BRADSHAW . I keep the Old Shades—early in October I went into the bar and found this bad florin there—about a fortnight afterwards, on 28th October, my son made a communication to me, and gave me this half-crown—I handed them both to the constable, and gave the prisoner in charge.

WILLIAM HULLS (Policeman A R 14). The prisoner was given into my custody for uttering a counterfeit half-crown and florin—she said, "They must have made a mistake about the two-shilling piece; I did not know the half-crown was bad"—I saw her give up her purse; it contained three shillings, four sixpences, and 5 3/4 d. in bronze—she said she was staying with a friend off the Strand, but she did not know the address—the female searcher handed me 2d. found on her.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These two coins are bad.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I gave the half-crown not knowing it to be bad. I know nothing of the florin. I have never been charged before."

GUILTY .**— Fifteen Month' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, November 18th 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18841117-9

9. JOHN WARD (52), WILLIAM DON (45), and GEORGE RICHARDS (52) , Unlawfully attempting to obtain by false pretences 163l. from William Clark with intent to defraud.Other Counts for attempting to obtain other sums, and for conspiracy.

MESSRS. POLANDandMEADProsecuted; MR. GRAINappeared for Ward,

MR. GEOGHEGANfor Don, andMESSRS. KEITH FRITHandBLACKWELLfor Richards.

WILLIAM CLARK . I was in business as a contractor in Australia; I had been there 15 years—in returning from Australia in June last I made the acquaintance of Ward; he came over in the same ship—on leaving the ship he gave me his address and told me to call at his hotel in Edinburgh—I went there; I found that he kept a Temperance hotel there—I stopped with him about 10 days—I went up to the North of Scotland, and came back to Edinburgh, and then I was introduced to Richards by Ward—Ward wrote for me to come down, as there was important business for me at Edinburgh, that he was going down to the Manchester Races—I have not the letter here—Richards then bore the name of Richard Stanley—Ward said he was a thorough sporting man, well acquainted with all the racing men in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and France as well, and that he knew all the trainers as well, that he was intimate both with Lord Rosebery in Scotland and Rothschild in England—Ward had got 40l. from me on my first visit to Edinburgh, and on the second visit, before I was introduced to Richards, 160l.—those sums were for backing various horses—I never received any money in consideration of these bets afterwards—I did not advance any more money in Edinburgh

I left Edinburgh about 15th September to go to Manchester Races with Ward and Richards—they said they could do better at the post than stopping at Edinburgh, and they asked me to go with them—we went to Leeds first, and stopped there one night, and then went on to the Manchester Races—when we were on the course at Manchester Ward left me, he said he was going into the betting—ring—he returned shortly and said he must back a horse for 50l., and wanted the 50l. from me—he told Richards as well, who was along with me in the Grand stand—he said if it was for 200l. or 250l. he would bet for him as well—I did not give him the money then; I had only a patent purse, and I could not get the money out quick enough—Richards said it was all right I could give him the money; passing a 50l. note to Ward—I did not examine it, I believed it to be one—Richards had a lot of money on him at the time—they were on his own bets; they were passed before mine were—Ward then went away towards the ring—I gave Richards 47l. and told him I would give him the other 3l. said, "All right"—after the race was run Ward said we had lost—when I gave the 7l. to Richards I did not know what horses I was supposed to back Ward did not tell me—I made a 50l. bet besides that; I did not advance the money I was to pay him in London; I had money in London—Ward made that bet, that was in the presence of Richards; he said we had lost that—he told me the names of the horses were strictly private; I did not know the names—Ward said he had lost a lot of money on the Manchester Races he did no state what amount—I came to London on 20th September—I stopped at the same hotel with Ward, Williams's Hotel, Bow Lane, Ward I saw Richards and Don there—I Was introduced to Don by Ward—he told me that he was a thorough gentleman, he had known him 20 years, and had had many transactions with him and always found him a straightforward man; he also said he was a great sporting man in England and France, and we knew all the racing men and trainers but he did not associate with the jockeys, they were a low class of people—I saw the prisoners nearly every day between the 22nd and 29th September—on Sunday, 28th September, Ward said there was very important business to attend the following day at 10 o'clock, and according to that arrangement I went to the Inns of Court at 10 o'clock with—Don and Richards were there when we got there—we went into a room there—Ward said he was going to back Sir Reuben; that was the name of a horse that was going to run in the Cesarewitch—he said he was gong to put on 250l. or 500l., he was not certain which—I was to put on 100l., and I consented to do so—I had not the the money with me at the time; I told Ward so—he said it did not matter because I could the time; I told Ward so—the other two prisoners were both present then—he said, he said he was going to provide the money in the mean-time—before Ward started he got the money from Don and Richards—I saw what I brought notes pass between them from Richards and Don and Ward pulled out some notes and said, "Here is two 50l. notes," and he said, "That will do for you"—I did not see whether they were 50l. notes—he then put all the notes in his purse, and said he was going away to put them on Sir Reuben—I and Don walked out towards the Holborn Restaurant—before Ward left he said I owed him altogether 163l., including the 50l. bet at Manchester, and the 13l. was for commission

—about half an hour or three-quarters of an hour after that Ward met me and Don at the Holborn Restaurant—he said he had bee to Tattersall's and done very good business—he also told me that he had met a friend who told him that he had to go to Paris, and he asked me to come along with him—I told him I would not go—I was going to the bank to get the money to give him before he started—Don was going to Paris too—we all three then went back to the Inns of Court Hotel, where we met Richards again, and while there the police took the three prisoners into custody and detained me—I went to the police-station, and there made a charge against the three prisoners, and signed the charge-sheet—I have parted with 288l. 3s. altogether to the prisoners—when I saw these notes at different times I thought they were genuine—I always believed what was told me about the bets on my behalf; I thought they were genuine, and I believed these were thorough gentlemen and straightforward men.

Cross-examined byMR. GRAIN. I have never done any racing in Australia, I never took any interest in Australian racing—I never Kept a betting book over here—on one or two occasions I took a note of the bets made for me on a piece of paper—Ward told me what horses he had backed and I put it down on a piece of paper—I wanted to make money by betting—I took the name of the horse that was backed, and if the horse had won I should have asked Ward to pay over the amount that had been won—I left it to Ward as to what horse he should back—there were different occasions when he did not give me the name of the horse he had backed; he said they were strictly private—I will swear that—I backed a horse named Cutlet, I put that down; it belonged, I was told, to Lord Rosebery, Ward made no secret about it on that occasion—I will not swear whether it ran third or not—I was interested in the race, I watched it pretty keenly—I asked for the colours of the horses, but I did not know the different colours—I did not buy a race card—Ward backed a horse named Sir Reuben—I have no doubt there was such a horse, and that that horse did run in that very race—I know what a favourite means—I don't know whether that horse started a favourite or not—I was anxious for Sir Reuben to win, and I should have asked Ward for the money if he had won—he also backed a horse for me named Highland Chief that ran in the Cesarewitch—he told me he had backed that horse—I never saw him go into the ring—I gave him 50l. to back Highland Chief, and he told me he had backed it—it was a temperance hotel that Ward kept, and he said that his wife managed it in his absence; it was rather a small place; he told me there were six rooms in it.

Cross-examined byMR. GEOGHEGAN. I have been in America, but only to stop there a few weeks when I was a boy—I have taken part in a sweep in Australia; I took a share in it, and I have seen the race run on different occasions—I knew nothing of racing matters when I came to England—I never selected a horse to back for myself in Australia—I used to read the sporting papers but very little—I have read the Sporting News since I came in contact with Ward—I did not know from reading that paper that Sir Reuben and Highland Chief were good horses to run—the only papers I used to read were the weights, names, and owners of the horses—I never saw Don till the 22nd September, and he never had a farthing of money from me—he was present when the

bet was made on Sir Reuben—he never made any bet with me; Ward made the bets—I had never seen races run on English racecourses till I went to Manchester with Ward—I know what a bookmaker is, I never saw them holding what appeared to be notes in their hands at Manchester; that was the only racecourse I have been on in England.

Cross-examined byMR. KEITH FRITH. Previous to seeing Richards I had made some bets with Ward—I remember going with Ward to see Richards at the Palace Hotel, in Princes Street, Edinburgh—Ward asked me to accompany him there—I never asked any of them to put money on for me at Edinburgh—I gave Ward 100l. to put on for me for the Doncaster Cup—I gave them 50l. to put on Highland Chief for me, and they said if the horse won I should get my money back tenfold; that was what Ward told me—I have not looked at the papers for racing at all, but for news in general—I never took up an evening paper and said "Oh, look how we have dropped again, we are not in the first three;" I said nothing of the kind—I suppose "dropping" means on the turf "losing"—I have got my pocket-book here; I made none of these entries in it, only Highland Chief and Sir Reuben were entered in it—I will swear there are not a dozen entries in my pocket-book in regard to racing matters, or a half-dozen either—I do not remember backing a horse named Knight of Athol—I do not know whether that horse ran at Manchester—I do not remember backing 4 to 1 on that horse at Manchester—I know a horse named Cutlet; Ward backed it for me; he strongly advised me to back it, he said I should win tenfold if I backed it—I do not know whether the horse started first favourite—I have seen Richards go up to bookmakers and put money on with them—I have seen him put a sovereign or two on, on two or three different occasions—it was on 29th September, on the day of the race, that the conversation was about Sir Reuben.

JOHN LANGRISH (Police Inspector). At half-past 11 on Sunday, 29th September, in company with other officers, I went to the Inns of Court Hotel, Holborn, where I saw Don and Richards with Clarke—Don went out with Clarke, Richards remained; I watched Richards—in about half an hour the officers returned bringing Don and Clarke with them—Ward came in; they were at the table talking together; I was watching—when about to leave the hotel Sergeant Reader stopped them; I addressed the whole of them and asked them to enter a room in the hotel; they did so, the three prisoners and Clarke, and I an 1 the other officers—I asked them to satisfy me what their business was there, and asked them to give me their names and addresses, as I believed they were there for the purpose of committing a felony—Ward gave his name, he said he was the proprietor of the Temperance Hotel in Edinburgh; the other three then refused to give any account of themselves—I asked them each separately; they gave no name or address—they were all then taken to the police-station; at the station Clarke gave his name as William Clarke, and that he was staying at Williams's Hotel in the City—from what he told me the three prisoners were detained in custody and were charged with conspiracy to defraud Clarke—I searched Richards; I found on him these six Bank of Engraving notes (produced)—he said nothing about them—he gave no account of himself—Reader searched Don, and Gregory searched Ward.

—I took Richards; the other two were taken in custody Reader and Gregory—the three were treated as prisoners—I asked each of them to give an account of themselves, and Ward immediately did—I did not treat Clarke as a prisoner because I thought he was what we term the mug, a man that had been defrauded, but I did not wish to lose sight of him, I would not have allowed him to go away—I did not intend in the first instance to charge all the four for being there to commit a felony—I had an idea that Clarke was the dupe—I was not desirous of making a case, I was desirous of doing what I considered my duty—I have ascertained that Ward does keep an hotel and lodging-house, and that it is now managed by his wife, and has been for some years past—they were all allowed out on bail on the second hearing, and they have surrendered here this morning.

Cross-examined byMR. KEITH FRITH. There was a slight mistake at the station, the charge-sheet was not signed till next morning, the prosecutor by some means went away; I think so, I am not positive—I charged them with being suspected persons—the first charge was conspiracy, and following that suspected persons frequenting a place of public resort for the purpose of committing a felony—I detained them in the cells all night on the charge of conspiracy—they had been taken before the Magistrate the same day—Gregory found out the prosecutor to come and sign the charge-sheet—I cannot say whether he refused to come or not.

Re-examined. After the prisoners were at the station and I had heard the account Clarke gave of himself, the three prisoners were charged before the Magistrate the same day with conspiracy to defraud Mr. Clarke—I and the other officers gave evidence—I had seen Richards once before, and I had other officers with me purposely to watch.

WILLIAM READER (Police Sergeant E). On this Monday, 29th September, I was with Langrish and other officers—we went to the Inns of Court Hotel, and saw there Don and Clarke—they left and went together to the Holborn Restaurant—I afterwards saw Ward join them—they went down Holborn first—afterwards Ward and Clarke left the restaurant together, leaving Don behind—afterwards they returned and Don joined them—they all three then went together to the Inns of Court Hotel—I saw Richards in the hotel—afterwards they all four were in a room, and I, Langrish, and the other officer—I took Don to the station—he did not give his name or address—I searched him there, and found on him 20 50l. Bank of Engraving notes and one 5l. note—I also found on him 6l. 10s. in gold and 8s. 6d. in silver, and also a cheque for 10l. on the London Joint-Stock Bank, and I gave that cheque up to him after inquiry.

Cross-examined byMR. GEOGHEGAN. This note bears an address in Fitzroy Square; I could not find such a person—I go to race-meetings outside London, Kempton Park and Alexandra Park—I have been to the Derby two or three times—I have seen bookmakers with such notes as these in their hands; most racing men carry them.

ALBERT GREGORY (Policeman). I was with the other officers—I took Ward to the station—he said, "Don't lay hands on me, I am an hotel-keeper," "in Australia" I understood him to say—I searched him at the station, and found on him 14 50l. Bank of Engraving notes and one 5l. note and 4s. in money, a watch and chain, and a betting-book—

CHARLES TIMMS (Policeman T 29) produced a certificate of conviction of Thomas Bracowitch as a rogue and vagabond, at the Lambeth Police-court, on 28th October, 1875, and sentenced to three months' hard labour; and

WILLIAM MILNE (Policeman) produced a certificate of the conviction of Thomas Tigg at Lambeth Police-court in July, 1879, when he was sentenced to three months' hard labour. Both these officers stated that Richards was the person so convicted.CHARLES HARRISONin reply stated that he was charged with Bracowitch, and that Richards was not the person.

Reference Number: t18841117-10

10. WILLIAM HENRY ISLIP , Feloniously forging and uttering an order for 24l. 9s. 6d.

MESSRS. POLANDandFRANCISProsecuted; MR. GRAINDefended.

WILLIAM HENRY HUDSON . I live at 91, Findon Road, South Kensington—on 6th August I was chief cashier at the Hanover Square branch of the London and County Bank—I knew the prisoner as secretary to the Langham Hotel Company—this cheque was presented to me by the prisoner on 6th August across the counter—he pointed out to me that he had altered the cheque from "order" to "bearer," and initialled it, and asked whether it could be cashed—upon that I cashed it for him.

Cross-examined. The word "order" is erased and the word "bearer" was substituted—I have been at this branch about eight years—the Company have only opened their account within the last 12 months—on opening the account we supplied a printed form, which the directors signed in their full names and the secretary at the foot—no cheque would be complete without the signature of the secretary—the cheque was in this state when presented—he told me what he had done before I gave him the money.

By theCOURT. The alteration from "order" to "bearer" makes no difference as to a cheque being negociable—when made payable to order it is not negociable until endorsed by the payee—the words printed on it, "Not negociable," would have no effect if payable to bearer—being crossed it would not be paid across the counter until it was uncrossed—I did not notice at the time that it was crossed.

WILLIAM SMITH . I am clerk in the secretary's department at the Langham Hotel—the prisoner was secretary there—I assisted him in his duties—it was my business to fill up cheques ready for signature—I filled up this cheque for 24l. 9s. 6d. ready for signature; it was laid before the directors to be signed by two of them and countersigned by the secretary—that amount was due to Mr. Mason, and it Would be sent to him.

Cross-examined. Sometimes cheques were left to be called for.

HENRY WEBB (City Detective). On 27th October last, from instructions, I went down to Wellingborough—I saw the chief of the police there and subsequently saw the prisoner—I told him I was an officer from London and came down to apprehend him for forging and uttering a cheque on the London and County Bank, Hanover Square branch, on 6th August, for 24l. 9s. 6d.—he said "Why, I took that cheque myself to the bank

and initialled it; I don't understand forgery; where is the forgery?"—I said "By your striking the word 'order' out and inserting the word 'bearer'"—he said "Oh, I have done that before; I sent that cheque for 20l. to the bank some time ago and initialled it in the same way, but the total of the two cheques I sent was over 40l.; I can't understand how it is, because I was sent for before the Committee, and they investigated the matter and told me they could dispense with my services and I was to pay the money back as soon as I could"—he said he had spent every shilling of the money in the hotel—I brought him to London.

Cross-examined. I had no warrant—I heard that his father lived at Wellingborough and that he was bailiff to a farmer there.

JAMES MURRAY . I am one of the directors of the Langham Hotel Co., Limited—the prisoner was secretary—cheques had to be signed by two directors and countersigned by him—we had some information, and the prisoner was present at a meeting on 15th August before the directors—he was dismissed, he was not told that he might pay the money back—he did not offer to pay the money back as soon as he could—this cheque for 24l. 9s. 6d. was signed by two of the directors and countersigned by the prisoner—we had to draw a fresh cheque and paid Mr. Mason since—the money was due to Mr. Mason for debenture interest—this cheque for 20l. was signed by myself and another director and countersigned by the prisoner and initialled by him, turning "order" into "bearer"—that cheque was to be paid to William Morgan, a lad who used to be in our service; he had gone abroad—the prisoner had no authority to alter a cheque and make it payable to bearer—we had a savings bank for the servants and Morgan had a savings bank book.

Cross-examined. We made repeated inquiries for Morgan, but we could not find him—his mother called about it, but she did not know whether he was alive—when the prisoner was called before the Board nothing was said about the repayment of the amount, I was there all the time—the Chairman said there had been grave irregularities and he said "We dismiss you"—I don't remember his saying "We do not prosecute you, but hope this may be a warning in future"—I don't think the prisoner said "I desire to pay back this money," nor did the chairman say "No doubt, being an honest man you would do so"—we are not prosecuting, it was left to the bank; the bank have paid the money over again—the prisoner was with us about 12 months—if a visitor to the hotel wished to deposit valuables they would be left with the manager; if the secretary were asked to receive them there would be no harm in his doing it.

ELIZABETH MORGAN . I am a widow—my son, William Morgan, was employed as page boy at the hotel five or six years ago when he was about 12 years of age—he went to sea four years ago, I have not heard from him for some time, I have received three letters from abroad saying that he was still living—I knew that he had money at the savings bank at the hotel—I went to to the secretary's office there about 3rd or 4th June last—I saw the prisoner there—I told him I had come to see him about my son's money, and would he advance me a little of it as I had a death in my family—he advanced me 1l.; he said he had got to draw a cheque out of the hotel and he had got it by him in a large safe which he pointed to—on the 16th I went again and told him he had better keep

the cheque till my son was found and have it renewed in the savings bank for him, as I did not wish to draw it—he said he would put it back in the bank—I did not know that he had got a cheque drawn and got the money—I did not authorise him to get the money—I never saw the cheque of 20th June till I saw it before the Magistrate.

Cross-examined. I asked him to put the money back in the savings bank; he was not to do anything with it—the prisoner advanced me 1l.—it was given me-out of my son's money.

CHARLES GEORGE WOODCOCK . I am a messenger in the secretary's office at the Langham Hotel—I knew the prisoner as secretary—on 21st June he gave me this cheque for 20l. 3s. 6d., payable to William Morgan—he told me to take it to the bank and get the cash—I went and got it cashed and gave him, the money—the cheque was then in its present state.

MR. GRAINsubmitted that no case of forgery was established; the cheque was a perfectly genuine document up to a point, properly signed by two directors, and countersigned by the secretary. All that the prisoner did was to write the word "bearer" and put his initials. The cheque being crossed, and marked "Not negotiable," would not be payable across the counter, but the bank, not observing the crossing, paid the money: and treated it as an open cheque. The alteration made by the prisoner did not alter the character of the document, and did not deceive the bank. He referred to Reg. v. Milton, 10 Cock's Criminal Cases, and Rex v. Jones, I Leech's Crown Cases.

MR. POLANDcalled attention to the 23rd section of the Forgery Act, within which he contended the present case came, and quoted Reg, v. Milton.

TheRECORDERwas of opinion that the objection must be overruled,; the effect of the alteration made by the prisoner was to make the cheque payable to any one, therefore the alteration was a material one, and came within the statute.

GUILTY. Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of the carelessness of the bank officials. — six Months Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18841117-11

11. ALFRED THOMAS PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully conspiring with George Israel Jones to induce Henry Smith to take him into his employ as a barman.— Six Month' Hard Labour.

MARY MACNAMARA . I assist Mrs. Baird, who keeps a general shop at 35, Prince of Wales Road—on October 31, between 3 and 4 p.m., Griffin came in with another boy and asked for a pennyworth of Colt's rock, and gave me this florin—I showed it to my mistress and then took it to a tobacconist next door, asking Griffin to wait, as I had not got change—when I came back the boys had gone—I went with a constable towards the Adelaide public-house, where omnibuses start from, and saw four

boys in an omnibus; they got out and ran down Adelaide Road—a detective took one of them and a constable another.

FREDERICK BROOKS (Policeman Y 144). I was called to the Prince of Wales public-house, received a description, went to the Adelaide, and saw an omnibus about to start—I went towards it, and four lads rushed out; I ran and caught the two prisoners, and said "I want you for passing counterfeit coin at 55, Prince of Wales Road"—they said nothing—when we got to the house, Mrs. McNamara identified Griffin—I took them to the station—Griffin said "Some man sent me in to change it"—I found on him two halfpence and a pawn-ticket—Mrs. McNamara gave me the florin—I gave it to Moore—the other two boys ran away.

THOMAS MOORE (Police Sergeant Y R). I searched Hollingby at the station—I made him take his boots and stockings off, and found this shilling in his right stocking—I asked him how it came there; he said that he did not know, but before the Magistrate he said that he found it in the bus.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am examiner of coins to the Mint—the florin and shilling are bad.

The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Griffin says: "On Friday a gentleman asked me to carry a box, and gave me 3s.; two lads followed us, and wanted half the money. I went into the shop to get change, the girl said she had not got change, and went out for change. I saw the two other boys run away." Hollingby says: "I Was with Griffin. The shilling he gave me I put into my boot."

HARRIET PATTLE . My husband keeps the Old Star and Grown, Broadway, Westminster—on 22nd October, between 8 and 9 p.m., I sold the prisoner a lemon, price 2d.; he gave me a half-crown, and finding it was bad just as he was going out, I showed it to Larder, a customer—I then tried it with my teeth, and it bent—this is it (produced)—about 10 minutes afterwards I received another half-crown from Charles Herbert (See next case)—on November 1st I served the prisoner with another lemon, price 2d.; he gave me a half-crown—I recognised him and called my husband, who went round and asked the prisoner what he had given me—he said "A half-crown"—I said "It is a bad one"—he said "If it is I will make it good"—my husband said "No," and gave him in custody with the coins.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I am sure it was you who gave me the half-crown on Wednesday; I knew you before I served you—I saw you reading the paper on the second occasion, but did not give you in custody then because I waited to see if you gave me another—when I said that you were there the week before you said I had made a mistake.

ALFRED PATTLE . I was at Hastings, and when I returned my wife showed me these two coins, both dated 1819—I kept them till November 1st, and then gave them to the police—on that day my wife called me from the cellar—I went up, saw the prisoner there, showed him the half.

crown, and said "Do you know this is bad?"—he said "I do not"—I said "It is"—he said "I will make it good" I said "No"—he said "Don't be hard on me, you don't want to get me into trouble, as I have a wife and child"—I said "It does not matter, I mean to see these cases out"—he struggled to get away; he seized me first, but two customers held the door—I had sent for the police, and took the three coins in my pocket to the station.

Cross-examined. I believe the two coins passed by you and Herbert were both of one date, 1819—the one my wife gave me on Wednesday is dated 1819, the other is 1835.

CHARLES LANDER . I am a painter, of 2, Eltham Street, Westbourne Park—on 22nd October I was in the Old Star and Crown between 8 and 9 p.m., and saw the prisoner served—Mrs. Pattle spoke to me and showed me a half-crown—I looked at it and said that it was bad—it was dated 1818—I saw the prisoner leave and followed him—he is the same man—I saw him brought to Rochester Bow on 1st November, and recognised him—it was in consequence of a request made to me that I did not give him in custody on the 22nd—I was at the police-court, but was not asked to give evidence.

WILLIAM BENNERMAN (Policeman B 444). I was called to the public-house—Mr. Pattle had hold of the prisoner and said "I shall charge this man with passing two bad half-crowns"—he said "I admit passing this one, but the other he has made a mistake about"—I said "You will have to go to the station with me"—he went quietly as far as Strutton Ground, and then made a sudden bolt forward, but I had hold of his sleeve—we had a scuffle, and he hit me on my mouth with his fist and made my teeth bleed—another constable came up—the prisoner was then on the ground, and was very rough and violent all the way to the station—he was charged, and admitted passing the half-crown, but said that they had made a mistake about the other—he said to Mr. Pattle "Which half-crown did I pass?"—he said "This"—that was the one of 1819—the prisoner said "You are wrong"—shortly afterwards Mrs. Pattle came, and he said "Which is the half-crown?"—she said "This one, 1835"—they are both bad—I found on him 10s. 6d. in silver and 6d. in bronze, all good—after he was charged and the trial was over, a woman brought some tea to the station—she went with me to the prisoner's cell-door, and he said to her, "Tell them to come up to the Court on Monday and say I was in bed that night, Wednesday, by 7"—he gave his correct address, 18, Crescent Street, Notting Hill.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These two half-crowns are bad—one is 1819, George III., and the other 1835, William IV.—this third coin is also of 1819, and from the same mould.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "At 3.30 I went into the man's house and called for a small lemon. I put down a half-crown for payment, but did not know it was bad. I got it from the Star and Garter, Sloane Square, in change for a half-sovereign, on Thursday as I was charged on Saturday. On the day mentioned by the landlord I was in my brother-in-law's house from 11 o'clock in the morning to 6 o'clock at night. I then went to come straight home and went to bed."

Place, Notting Hill—on Wednesday, 22nd October, the prisoner was at my house helping me to paint a bedstead which was going to be moved—I had asked him to do so—he came about a quarter to 6, and left just before 11 o'clock, saying that he was going straight home.

Cross-examined byMR. LLOYD. He is my brother-in-law—he never spoke to me about this case, but I heard from his wife that he was in trouble—I noted the day and the hour particularly, because his wife told me he was charged on the 22nd—she did not know the hour—I first heard that he was charged on a Thursday in November—I painted the bedstead at 10, St. George's Road—I do not live there now, we have moved from there to 8, Triangle Place.

By theCOURT. I got no message to tell me to say this, I know nothing at all about it—we had tea in the front room, about a quarter or 20 minutes to 6 o'clock—I came home from work at 5 o'clock, and we had tea before we began painting the bedstead, and my brother-in-law came home after we had had tea—we had supper about 9.30 or 10 o'clock, fried fish and potatoes, and we were painting the bedstead between 10 and 11 o'clock—we had it by the side of us, we could not make a mess of two rooms—my brother-in-law came in at a quarter to 6 o'clock.

MARY ANN HARRIS . I am the wife of the last witness—the prisoner came to our house on Wednesday, 22nd October, and helped my husband to paint a bedstead—he left just upon 11 o'clock, not having left the house before that—I first heard that he was in trouble last Friday week.

Cross-examined. His wife came on the Friday and told me the charge—the prisoner came in just before 6 o'clock—he is my brother—we had nearly finished tea when he came in.

The prisoner in his defence stated that he got the half-crown in change for a half-sovereign, and did not know it was bad, and that he was never in the house before and knew nothing about the other half-crown.

GUILTY .*— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18841117-14

14. CHARLES HERBERT (29) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYDandWILKINSONProsecuted.

HARRIET PATTLE . My husband keeps the Old Star and Crown, Westminster—on 22nd October, between 8 and 9 p.m., I served the prisoner with a glass of beer, which came to 2d.—he gave me this half-crown—I went into the other bar to send for a constable, and when I came back the prisoner had gone—I marked the coin and kept it—on the following Monday morning I was taken to Rochester Row Station, and saw six or eight men, and recognised the prisoner among them—this happened after the prisoner in the last case had been in.

CHARLES PALMER . I keep the Portland Arms, Millbank Road, Westminster—on November 1st, about 6.15 or 6.30, the prisoner came in and asked for two of whisky—my son served him—I was close at hand—he gave a bad half-crown, which my son detected at once—I asked him to account for it—he said "I suppose I must have taken it in change for a sovereign, I changed a sovereign yesterday"—I said "Where?"—he said "I don't know"—I sent for a constable, and saw him mark the coin with a penknife—this is it (produced).

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You gave me your name and address as soon as I required it—you said nothing about the sign of the house where you changed it.

JOHN PALMER . I am the son of the last witness—on November 1st, about 6.30,1 served the prisoner with twopennyworth of whisky—he gave me a half-crown; I found it was bad and gave it to my father.

CHARLES DUNLOP (Policeman B 132). I took the prisoner on November 1st, about 6.20, and said "How did you come into possession of this coin?"—he said "I had it given me by another party where I changed a sovereign"—I found on him three florins, 1s. 6d., ninepence halfpenny in bronze, some wire, a pair of eyeglasses, and a piece of white metal.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These half-crowns are bad, one is of 1819, and the other 1835, from the same moulds as those in the last case—this is a lump of melted silver, not white metal—the wire is part of a broken spectacle frame.

Prisoner's Defence. I did put it down, I did not know it was bad. I could not possibly have been in the lady's house, for I had not been in Westminster for three months. I have never been in trouble or before a police-court. I told the landlady I did not know the name of the house where I changed the sovereign, but I know the house, it is Mr. Lilley's, in Clement's Road. I had a commission to sell the lump of silver, and I got the wire from James Hooper, who told me to find out if it was silver.

ALFRED HENRY MAYZE . I am barman at the Marquis of Granby, Chandos Street—on 1st November, about 11.45 p.m., the two prisoners came in, and White asked for a pot of beer in a can; it came to 5d.—she gave me this shilling—I called my master's attention to it and found it was bad—she was given in custody.

THOMAS ARTHUR STREET . I keep the Marquis of Granby, I saw both the prisoners there on 1st November—I took the bad shilling to White and said "What do you mean by passing this bad shilling?"—she said nothing, but Sullivan said "Give him coppers for it"—White opened her hand with several coppers in it, and another coin which I thought was a counterfeit shilling, and I snatched it out of her hand, found it was, and, sent for the police—she had more than enough coppers in her hand to pay for the beer—these (produced) are the two shillings.

CHARLES BLAKE (Policeman E 463). I took the prisoners and received these two coins—they said nothing—I received these other coins from the female searcher—after the charge was read over White said "I am guilty of passing the bad money, but my mother is innocent."

THEODOSIA CURTIS . I am female searcher at Bow Street Station—I searched White—she had a loaf and some butter in her apron—I found this shilling in the butter, and this shilling and sixpence three-farthings in her pocket.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These three shillings are bad and from the same mould.

The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. White says; "My mother

SOPHIA GREEN . I live at the Castle public-house, Chalton Street, Bryanston Square—on or about October 9th, between 7.30 and 8 p.m., the prisoner came in with another man and asked for three-halfpennyworth of gin and half a pint of sixpenny ale; that came to threepence—he gave me a half-crown; I gave him the change and put the half-crown in the till by mistake, as we do not keep half-crowns there—I afterwards put it on a shelf behind the bar, and found it was bad before he had turned his back; I asked him to stop a minute, he looked round and laughed at me and walked out—the other man was standing at the bar—I handed the half-crown to Mr. Copeman, and saw it marked—this is it—on 6th November I went to the Marylebone Police-court and recognised the prisoner among nine or ten others.

Cross-examined. I had never seen the prisoner before—the house was not pretty full, two people were waiting on one side and one on the other side—Record, the detective, took me to the station—he said he had some one in custody, but he did not describe the man—the man who passed the coin had a slight moustache—I had told the officer that he was rather a slight man, not very tall, and with a slight dark moustache—there were no people among those he was there with about the same age or height or the same type of general appearance—everybody else was utterly unlike the man I described—I did not say "I think this is the one," I said "This is the one."

JOB COPEMAN . I keep this public-house—on 19th October Green handed me a bad half-crown, and I spoke to a very tall thin man who was there—I did not see the prisoner—I marked the coin, this is it—half-crowns are not usually kept in the till.

HENRY NORMAN . I am a tobacconist, of 5, Henry Street, St. John's Wood—on 23rd September, about 3.55 p.m., the prisoner came in alone, but there was another man standing there—the prisoner asked for a half-ounce of shag, price 2d., and gave me this bad shilling—I put it into the till and was going to take the change out; but there was only sixpence and twopence there, and I had to go round to the other till to get twopence to give him; I then gave him 10d.—he went outside and I heard his friend say something and hold his hand out—I went back to the till where I had put the shilling in and found it was bad—I went after them, they were about 200 yards in front of me, the prisoner saw me coming and took the first turning down Charlotte Street, where he looked round again—I gave the shilling to Sergeant Record.

Cross-examined. I saw a description in a newspaper, and went down to the station—Record was at the farther end of the corridor when I picked him out—there were other persons with the prisoner, but not with the same kind of hats; the others had black hats, there was not one resembling him—I did not talk over the description with the detective, I was not in conversation with him a minute.

about midnight—I saw the prisoner showing a silver watch to a lad—I went up and said "What have you got there?"—he said nothing—I put my hand in his left waiscoat pocket and found a watch with the bow broken off, and in his right waistcoat pocket these two half-crowns (produced), and in his trousers pocket 2s. 1 1/2 d., good money—he said "As to the watch, I had it from a man who I don't know about 10 months ago"—I took him to the station—he was charged with the unlawful possession of a watch, and with having in his possession two counterfeit half-crowns—he said "I thought I had only one bad half-crown"—he was taken to the police-court next day, remanded till November 6th, when he was placed with 10 or 12 other men, and Green and Norman immediately picked him out.

Cross-examined. There has never been any charge against him with regard to the watch—we always get men to place with prisoners as nearly similar as we can—we did not on this occasion get persons who did resemble him—I did not hear Green's evidence.

By theJURY. The two witnesses saw the prisoner in the same position, with the same people, within half an hour—he chose his position.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . This shilling and half-crown are bad—these two half-crowns taken from the prisoner are bad, and from the same mould, but not from the same mould as the first.

NOT GUILTY .

FOURTH COURT.—Tuesday, November 18th, 1884.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

Reference Number: t18841117-18

18. JOHN ROBERT MOTLEY (29) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously marrying Emma Harding, his wife being then alive— One Month's Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18841117-19

19. JOHN CLARK (28) , Feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Kate Davis and stealing an Ulster, a jacket, and other articles, her property.

MR. PELLEWProsecuted.

WILLIAM PECK (Inspector T). I was on duty at Twickenham on the evening of 19th October, and went with another constable to the house 7, The Crescent, South-Western Road, Twickenham—I pushed the door open, searched the house, and found the prisoner in the coal-cupboard—the other constable took charge of him—I found a jacket, Ulster, and cloak in the parlour, on the floor—I examined the washhouse at the back, and found the window open and the glass broken near the fastening—the prisoner was taken to the station and charged with breaking and entering the house and stealing these articles—he said "I do not think you can call that stealing, inspector, I did not take them out of the house"—some one from outside came in the front door, which I had left open, and said "I think there is another man;" the prisoner said "No, there is no one here but me; I came across the field at the back, and got in the back way"—he was quite sober.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. The things lay on the floor.

KATE DAVIS . I live at 7, The Crescent, South-Western Road, St. Margaret's, Twickenham—this jacket and cloak are mine—I last saw them safe a few days previous to 19th October, hanging up in a cupboard on the top of the staircase—I was out at a quarter-past 8 o'clock on the

19th October—I have nothing to do with the windows, my sister fastens them up.

CHARLES MASON (Policeman T 114). On 19th October I searched 7, The Crescent, with the Inspector.—I found the prisoner in the coal-cupboard and took him to the station, where I searched him, and on him found a red pocket-handkerchief and a pawnbroker's ticket—he was sober.

The prisoner in his defence stated that Mrs. Davis was his sister; that he went to see her, and finding she was not at home, and not being properly sober, he went round to the back and got in at the window to wait till she came back, and that then the police coming, he got into the cupboard; and he denied any intention to steal.

KATE DAVIS (Re-examined by theCOURT). The prisoner is my brother.

WILLIAM PECK (Re-examined). I went to this house because the neighbours sent for the police, as they thought somebody was breaking in, and the house had been broken into before.

MARY ANN CLARK . I am John Clark's wife—we live at 141, Bemerton Street, Islington—at a quarter-past 12 on the morning of 2nd November I was by myself in the Caledonian Road—when I got to the corner of Bingfield Street I was just going to cross the road when I was struck at the back of the neck and knocked down into the road—a man came over me instantly and twisted my arm, and took a purse with 1s. 5d. in it, which I had in my hand, and ran away—I jumped up and ran too—there was a lamp-post there—I am positive the prisoner is that man—I ran after him and screamed—he ran to a coffee-stall and went round it three times—I dodged him, he ran, I ran across the road after him, and halloed out "Stop thief," and I saw him turn the corner into Bemerton Street—I ran alter him and saw him again, when the police had him—I said, "You vagabond."

Cross-examined. I fell on my face in the road—it was all very quickly done; I was no sooner touched than the man had my purse and was gone—I was almost rendered silly, I don't know how I ran, I have been ill since—I kept him in my eye—I lost sight of him for a minute when he went into Bingfield Street, not before—I next saw him in the police-man's arms—he is the man that knocked me down—I afterwards went, to the station and picked him out from a lot of men.

ALBERT JUDD (Policeman Y 546). On Saturday morning, 2nd November, I was on duty in Bemerton Street—I saw the prisoner running, and several people following calling "Stop thief"—I got in front and tried to stop him—he struck me a violent blow on the left shoulder, and I fell to the ground, the prisoner falling at the same time—we got up, I went to take him, we struggled, he kicked me several times—another constable came to assist me; the prisoner was secured with great difficulty—the prosecutrix came up and charged him with knocking her down and stealing her purse—the purse has not been found—it was about 150 yards where I saw him from the place where the prosecutrix said she was robbed.

Street—the prisoner lives in that street—abort four people were running, not 20—I saw him turn from Bingfield Street into Bemerton Street—I crossed the road to stop him, and stood in front of him; he closed with me, and I fell one way and he the other—nothing was found on him.

DAVID WORSEFOLD (Policeman Y 563). I was on duty in Bemerton Street on the morning of 2nd November—I saw the prisoner running along Bemerton Street, and the last witness crossed the road and the prisoner knocked him down—I went up and assisted—the prisoner was very violent; we took him to the station between us—the prosecutrix came up and identified him.

Cross-examined. Only the prisoner was running.

Witness for the Defence.

MARTHA BOWDELL . I am the prisoner's mother—on the evening on which my son was taken into custody he was standing, between a quarter and 20 minutes past 12, at the door—I had let my, eldest son in, and saw he had had some drink, and persuaded him to go upstairs, and as I and the prisoner were talking there was a great halloaing, and a throng of people running in all directions, and I said, "Are you coming upstairs?"—he said, "I won't be a minute, mother, I will see what is the matter," and he joined in the throng and ran—I should think 100 or perhaps 200 people were running.

GUILTY . There was another indictment against the prisoner for the assault on the police.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18841117-21

21. JAMES BRYAN (24) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Henry Slater, and stealing an overcoat, coat, and other articles, the goods of Michael Levy Green, and another.

MR. PELLEWProsecuted.

HENRY SLATER . I am manager to Messrs. Levy Green and Co., of 27 and 28, Whitechapel Road—on Saturday night, 18th October, I locked up all the premises at 11 o'clock—at 3 o'clock on Sunday morning I was called to the place, and found it had been broken into through the doorway—there was a railing 7 feet high in front, and a pair of glass doors a few feet behind, and the glass had been broken—I then went to the police-station, and saw there these clothes—it is a tailor's shop, and they are my employer's property—they were safe in the shop on the Saturday when I locked up.

GEORGE CATCHPOLE (Policeman H 182). On Sunday morning, October 19th, I was on duty in the Whitechapel Road about 20 minutes to 3—I was passing Messrs. Levy Green and Co.'s, No. 28—I saw the pane of glass in the glass door had been broken, and I got over the railings and went into the shop, where I saw the prisoner, who was naked except his shirt and stockings, asleep lying on some clothes—I tried to rouse him; he would not rouse—he put his clothes on afterwards with my assistance—I took him to the station with the clothes.

The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he was very drunk on the Saturday night, and did not know how he came on the premises.

GEORGE CATCHPOLE (Re-examined by theCOURT). The prisoner was sober when I saw him.

22. ALBERT NEWMANN (54) , Embezzling the sums of 3l. 3s., 3l. 3s., and 1l. 1s., reserved by him for Ebenezer Goode and another, his masters.

MR. HORACE AVORY Prosecuted; MR. CLUERDefended.

EBENEZER SAMUEL GOODE . I am a member of the firm of E. S. and A. G. Goode, of Newgate Street, tobacco manufacturers—up to September last the prisoner was in our service as traveller, at a salary of 30s. a week and 5 per cent, commission on all business he did over 20l. a week, and 1 1/4 per cent, commission on all cash received by him—it was all settled up, and he was paid once a week—his duties were to go out and get orders and collect cash—he had to attend in the counting-house every morning to book up his orders and pay in his cash—these cash sheets (produced) were kept in the counting-house, and he had to fill them up when he received customers' cash with the dates and amounts received, and it was then his duty to hand the money over into the office—he had been in that capacity without a break since March—altogether he had been there, I think, about 18 months—he had previously been employed as foreman and manager at the factory at Lewisham—at the beginning of September I gave him with the other travellers notice to leave, and they all left at the end of September—the prisoner's salary and commission had been paid week by week up to the day he left, and actually up to October 4—he left 30th September—after he had left circulars were sent round to the customers, and in consequence of their replies he was given into custody—this is a receipt (produced), dated 7th July, for three guineas from Mr. Carter—he was a customer of ours, and on 7th July was owing me three guineas—the receipt is in the prisoner's handwriting—this is a receipt (produced) in the prisoner's handwriting of 3rd September for three guineas from Mr. Gooch—he is a customer of ours, and was owing us three guineas on 3rd September—this is a receipt (produced) in the prisoner's handwriting of 12th September, one guinea, Mr. Higgins—he was a customer owing us that sum on that day—the cash-sheets from 26th June to 13th September are all in these lists (produced)—there are no entries on the days or on any other days of the receipts of those sums from those customers—there is a printed column for the name of the customer, and his address, and the amount paid.

Cross-examined. I am a partner in the firm—the prisoner has been engaged as our traveller since March last—I made the engagement with him personally in my partner's presence, I believe; it was made verbally—a written agreement was offered to the prisoner at some time; I cannot speak from memory when—he refused it—this (produced) is a copy of it—it was merely a suggestion that he should be paid a salary of 2l. per annum; that is a common habit, it alters the terms altogether—the object, combined with other terms, was in order to make him, in our opinion, a clerk and servant—he refused that agreement—I think he had been in our business about three years and a half—he did not bring us a large connection in the cigar and tobacco trade—he had a connection—I cannot say if he issued jointly with us, a circular to his old customers in the tobacco trade—I was not a partner in the firm then—Mr. Alfred Goode is here; he was a partner in the firm at the time—I think I heard of the circular—I know Newmann sold our goods to the Civil Service Stores under the old name of his firm, Henderson and Co.—it was said to him "You are not to be our agent"—this is an account (produced) delivered by the prisoner to the Civil Service Stores for our goods, that he had not

been able to get payment for—that is in 1882, and this is one in 1884 for samples—the goods were sent by our firm right to the Stores by his direction, I believe, and were entered in his name—I cannot say if the Civil Service goods are entered in our books in the prisoner's name—I do not know if he went about with invoices headed "Bought of J. Henderson and Co."—I suppose I have seen the cheques that came from the Civil Service Stores—I cannot say if they were made payable to J. Henderson and Co.—they were handed over to him and endorsed by him, and made payable to J. Henderson; that is his trade name—he was put by us on commission alone for four months—he was our servant.

Re-examined. We had no open account with the prisoner except occasionally small parcels of snuff for himself—we had no account in our book with him as an agent—I believe this account is for samples he left at the Stores in hjs own name—if he left samples out, we should charge them to him; we charge travellers with samples—this is an account for samples which I charged the prisoner with, and which he paid—he refused the offer of 2l. per annum and 8 per cent, commission; that was some time this year—Newmann had been travelling three weeks for us on commission, and in February he said it was very hard lines for him; he could not meet his expenses, and did not know what to do; that in two months he was going to have an engagement with a German company, which would put him on his legs, and if he could only go on till then, everything would be settled amicably and he would leave us friendly, and so on, and have something to live upon—we consulted together and said, "We will put you back, Mr. Newmann, on 30s. a week, 5 per cent. on all over 20l., and give you 1 1/4 percent, on all cash you receive;" and since then that has been carried out—before February he had 30s. a week and 5 per cent, on all he did over 20l. a week, then through February he was put on 5 per cent only, as we had told him we could not keep him on because he did so little; Mr. Alfred Goode was present at that interview—I do not think there was any other account on the same footing as that of the Civil Service Stores; that was a special account, and the reason for it was that years ago we supplied the Stores when they first started, and then they left us—when the prisoner came he had a small connection with, them, and he said they would not deal with us in our name, but they would if it was in his name.

ByMR. CLUER. We never put our name on cigar boxes—they were a special brand; we bought them from Newmann and paid him cash for them when he first came to us years before.

BENJAMIN JAMES CARTER . I am a licensed victualler, and keep the Durham Castle, Alexander Street, Westbourne Park—I was in the habit of purchasing cigars from Goode's—on 7th July I paid the prisoner three guineas for cigars, and he gave me this receipt on one of Messrs. Goode's billheads.

Cross-examined. I did not know Mr. Newmann before 1881; I first saw him about ten months ago.

JOHN GOOCH . I keep the Vincent at Canning Town—on 3rd September I paid three guineas to the prisoner for cigars, and he gave me this receipt on one of Messrs. Goode's billheads—I believe he brought the account with him.

JOHN WILSON HIGGINS . I keep the White Hart, Long Lane, West Smithfield—on 12th September I paid the prisoner one guinea for cigars

and he gave me this receipt on one of Messrs. Goode's billheads—I understood I was dealing with Messrs. Goode; the goods came from them.

BAXTER HUNT (City Detective). About 10 o'clock on 20th October I arrested the prisoner in High Street, Lewisham; I charged him with embezzling various sums and enumerated three, Mr. Bennett, 7l. 14s., 11th September; Mr. Badley, 3l. 7s. 6d., 6th May; Mr. Langley, 18s. 6d.—he replied "Yes, it is quite right; they are paid in in another name; I plead justification; I am not a servant."

ALFRED JOHN GOODE . I was in partnership with my father when the prisoner joined the firm in 1881, I think, as foreman; his wife was fore-woman previously; his salary was then 2l. a week—he ceased to be in that position about two years ago when my cousin joined the firm, when we made great alterations in the business and moved the factory—we gave him notice that we should not require his services as foreman, and made him town traveller at a salary of 30s. a week, 5 per cent, on the business he did over 20l., and in February this year I told him he was not doing sufficient business, and we should have to pay him commission only—he continued on commission only during February, and it may have been March—I was present when a fresh arrangement was made with him—We told him we would go on for a short time on the old terms, but, to make it better for him, that we would add to the 30s. per week and 5 per cent, commission on all over 20l., 1 1/4 per cent, on all cash he collected, and on those terms he continued till he left—we said we should expect him at the office every morning to book up his orders and pay in the cash received the previous day—he was under orders—he was not entitled to give customers any credit he liked—I have brought a ledger with the Civil Service Stores account in—it is entered in the prisoner's name, because previously to his being our foreman at Lewisham he and his wife had carried on a cigar manufactory, which she had had before her marriage, but they became bankrupt, and he asked me if I would supply his old customers and allow him a commission, and an arrangement was made by which we allowed him, while foreman at Lewisham, to go out all day as a traveller, giving him 5 per cent, commission on all cash he handed in—one of his customers was the Civil Service Stores—this circular was sent out—the goods to the Civil Service Stores were entered in his name, because he said it was no use their going in ours, because we were in bad odour at the Stores and should get no orders, and the goods were entered in his name, and it appears so in our ledger—in no other instance have goods gone in his name.

Cross-examined. In no other case have our goods been sent in his name—it was only necessary in the case of the Stores—the cheques from the Stores were made payable to the prisoner—they thought they were dealing with him—I don't know if he had a banking account of his own—the arrangement of 5 per cent, commission only came to an end at the beginning of March—when the new engagement took place he said he could not meet his expenses, and we were satisfied of that by the small amount of trade he was doing, and he said that in two months he expected something from Germany, and that then everything could be settled amicably—I do not know what we understood by that, he made so many funny remarks—we then agreed on the 30s. a week and 5 per cent, commission over 20l., and 1 1/4 per cent, on collections—we have since paid him 30s. a week in full, and I believe he received one or two

small amounts on commission—the last week or two he received 30s. a week and did nothing—when this circular was issued by us and the prisoner he was our servant, we were paying him as foreman of the factory then—he was our servant afterwards—this appears to be an account from our firm to the prisoner, I don't know what for, I don't keep the accounts—he brought us a few customers when he came to the factory, and said if we would give him 5 per cent commission he would hand them over to us—I think he wrote on 6th October, claiming compensation from us—I don't know that he courted inquiry—I cannot say if I have got a letter he wrote to Messrs. Bowker, our solicitors, on 11th October.

MR. CLUER. submitted that upon this evidence the prisoner was an agent and not a servant.MR. COMMISSIONER KERRleft the case to the Jury.

NOT GUILTY .

There was another indictment against the prisoner. (See New Court, Thursday.)

ALFRED BLYTH . I live at 6, Goldsmith's Place, Canonbury Road, Islington—on 13th October, about 11.30, I was in a passage in Essex Road, near the Thatched House public-house, talking to Mrs. Hassent, when the prisoner came up and caught hold of Mrs. Hassent's arm—I said, "Who are you?"—he pushed me; I struck him in the face, and then we exchanged two or three blows for about half a minute—then he stepped back and rushed at me, and hit me here in the side; first he struck at me with his fist and caught me across the arm, and then he struck me again—I saw a knife in his hand; he struck me five or six times with a knife, I expect—then the police came up, and I walked to the station—I was then taken to the hospital, and was an in-patient for a fortnight—this knife is not mine.

Cross-examined. I was the worse for liquor—I had a knife on me, and still had when taken to the hospital—I have heard the prisoner had a very large gash in the thigh—I and the girl were not sitting down on the step together when the prisoner came up—he did not say, "You are holding her very tight"—I believe he said nothing—he gave me a push for me to go away, and I struck him on the nose, and then there was a fair fight.

FANNY HASSENT . I live at 2, Spring Gardens, Carwood Street, Lower Tooting—I am married—about 11 p.m. on 13th October I was with the prosecutor in the Essex Road outside the Thatched House; we were conversing and standing, together—the prisoner came and took hold of my arm and said something to me, I could not say what, I was too frightened—my friend asked him what he wanted of me—he pushed him, and Blyth hit him, and they had a fight—I was so frightened I did not know what I was doing, and when I came to I ran between them and fell down, and got a kick in the side, nothing to hurt much—then I screamed, and a policeman came up, and they were both taken to the station—I saw nothing of the knife.

Hospital—I saw the prosecutor on the morning of 14th October—he was not sober, and very much excited, and I found on the left side of his abdomen three punctured wounds—on the right side of his abdomen, extending to the groin, was a wound nearly 5 inches long, somewhat deep in its lower part, a small wound in the front of the chest on the left side, and a small punctured wound at the back of the chest on the left side, two very small wounds—those wounds might have been caused by this knife—he was an in-patient till the 27th, and is an out-patient still—the wounds were very slight except the one on the groin; that was about 1 inch deep, but narrow—none of them were very dangerous, but there was a certain amount of danger connected with them.

THOMAS SLY (Policeman N 373). About 11.30 on 13th October I heard screams, and went to this place near the Thatched House, where I saw the prisoner and prosecutor struggling together, and Hassent—I took the prisoner to the station—on the way he said, "I have been stabbed in the thigh with a white-handled knife"—the prosecutor said on arriving, "He has stabbed me"—I returned to the spot and found this whitehandled knife lying on the footway—I charged the prisoner at the station—he said, "As I was passing through the place I saw the two standing together; I said something to the girl; the man rushed at me and struck me between the eyes a heavy blow"—the prisoner was drunk—the prosecutor had been drinking—I searched the prisoner, but found no knife on him—a small brown-handled knife was found on the prosecutor—the prisoner had a wound on his thigh—he was examined by the divisional surgeon, who is not here.

Cross-examined. I saw the wound on his thigh, it was over an inch long, and a silver wire stitch was put in—the prisoner had a mark on each cheek, as if from a blow—he said he had been knocked against the railings—I made inquiries at his lodgings and found he had only been there a fortnight, and he had only just come back from Suez—I heard he had lost 1,100l., that he had been a teetotaller three years, and that his loss had made him take to drink.

DR. GILBERT (Examined byMR. GEOGHEGAN). I am surgeon at the House of Detention—I examined the prisoner; he was suffering from a wound in his thigh, about two inches long—I did not examine the depth—it might have been caused by a small penknife.

The prisoner received an excellent character.

GUILTYof unlawfully wounding.MR. GEOGHEGANstated that the prisoner was willing to make reparation to the prosecutor.— Eight Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18841117-24

24. JAMES JACKSON (17) PLEADED GUILTY to forging and uttering an order for the payment of 6l. 7s.; also to forging and uttering an order for the payment of 2l. 10s., with intent to defraud.— Judgment respited.

Reference Number: t18841117-25

25. EDITH CAPLIN (16) , to stealing 19s. 10d., the money of Elizabeth Wright, from the person of Maud Pilcher; also to stealing 2l. 13s. 9d., the moneys of Henry Lytton, from the person of Maria Chapel, after a conviction of felony in December, 1883.— Judgment respited. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

Reference Number: t18841117-26

26. HENRY SMITH (23) to forging and uttering a request the the delivery of 16 yards of satin; also to obtaining 16 yards of satin from Messrs. Smith and Sanders by false pretences, with intent to defraud.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

28. ELEANOR LAVERNO was charged on the Coroner's Inquisition only, with the manslaughter of her child, Eleanor Laverno, jun.

MR. POLAND, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence on the Inquisition, the Grand Jury having ignored the bill.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18841117-29

29. WILLIAM BENNETT (21), was indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with, the manslaughter of John Appleby.

MESSES. POLANDandMONTAGU WILLIAMSProsecuted; MR. BURNTE

Defended.

WILLIAM CHERRY . I am a labourer, and live at 15, Henry's Road, Tottenham—about half-past 6 o'clock on Saturday night, 11th October, I was in the. side bar of the Woodberry Hotel, Tottenham—I saw the prisoner and Appleby in the same bar—I knew Appleby by sight, the prisoner was a stranger to me—they were falling out about money matters, and they went outside to fight—I followed them out—I saw them pull off their coats and fight—they then returned to the public-house together sociable—then they fell out again and went out again to fight; they hugged one another and fell down together, the deceased underneath and the prisoner on the top—no blows were struck—I went up and pulled the prisoner off Appleby—he was insensible; I put him against the wail—they had been in the public-house for two hours, and were going to the play together—they were friends—they were the worse for liquor—they were both small men.

Cross-examined. I and others helped to carry the deceased home—I took him across my shoulders, with his head hanging down behind—it was only four or five minutes' walk to his home—he was a very light man and I carried him easily—I had had something to drink, but knew what was going on—I didn't stumble, I carried him straight home.

ROBERT WILLIS . I am a costermonger, at Tottenham—I knew the deceased seven or eight years—I saw him in the public-house on this day, and saw him and the prisoner go out to fight—they had four or five rounds—they then went back to the public-house, and then went out and fought again—the deceased fell, and the prisoner upon him; he was picked up and taken home—it was only a wrestle.

ANN APPLEBY . The deceased was my son—he was brought home about 7.15 on 11th October quite helpless and insensible—I sent for a doctor next morning—he died about 10 o'clock—he was 23 years of age.

Cross-examined. The prisoner and he were friends—the prisoner came for him that afternoon and they went out together—I have known the Sprisoner from a little boy; he has always been peaceable and well-con-ducted.

WILLIAM ROBERT JONES . I am a registered medical practitioner, of 4, Oak Villas, Tottenham—about 7.30 on Sunday morning, 12th October, I was called to see the deceased; he was in a comatose state, and died about half an hour afterwards—I made a post-mortem examination on

the 13th—he died from concussion of the brain—a violent fall would occasion it—I don't think a blow would.

SIDNEY HILLMAN (Policeman N R 24). I took the prisoner into custody on 12th October for assaulting John Appleby—he said "We were in the public-house drinking together, and we went out and had a fair fight. We were both drunk, and fell several times."

THOMAS ABBOTT (Police Inspector). I was at the station when the prisoner was brought there—he said "We came home from work. He asked me if I would go and meet him, as we were going to the playhouse. I saw him at the Woodberry afterwards. He said he wouldn't go to work at the price I asked him. We had a pot or two; he wouldn't pay for it; that caused a disturbance, and we went and fought. We both got falling down. We were both drunk."

MARIA AMOS . I am the wife of Edward Amos, a meat-salesman, of 28, Malvern Road, Hornsey—on 8th October, a little before 10 in the morning, I went out for a drive in a two-wheeled cart—my little girl, aged 8 years, was with me, and my baby, Charles John Amos, 4 months old—the prisoner drove us—when we got as far as the Seven Sisters Road I looked up and found we were very close to a four-wheeled covered van; I said "Oh! look, Harry"—I heard a noise of the wheels and found myself falling out of the trap with my baby in my arms—the cart went over me; the baby was underneath me—a policeman came and lifted me up—I was taken to the doctor's with my baby; it was unconscious, and died on Monday, 13th—I didn't see how the collision occurred; my attention was on the baby—the prisoner was sober, as far as I know—he had fulfilled his duties as usual in the morning—he was looking after the horse and trap for us until he got other employment—he had been to the market that morning to take my husband to business.

By theCOURT. We left home a little before 10, and the accident happened a little after 10—I had seen him before we went out—he had been in the house and had had his breakfast as usual just before we came away—he had two cups of tea and some bread and meat for his breakfast about 9.30—it was about five in the morning that he took my husband to business; he then returned and lighted the fire—I saw him when I came down about 8.30; the kettle was then boiling—after that he was feeding the pony and cleaning it—he had nothing to drink except his breakfast—he held the baby for me while I dressed my little girl—he sat by the fire with it, and he held it while I got up into the trap—he spoke like a sober man—he had my little girl between his legs, because there was not room for her on the seat.

EDWIN JAMES PARSLEY . I am a coal merchant, and live in Upper Tollington Park—on the morning of 8th October, about 10.10, I was in the Seven Sisters Road, near the Durham Road, and saw the prisoner driving a cob and two-wheeled spring-cart, going towards the Nag's Head, at a rate of between 10 and 12 miles an hour—the reins were hanging loosely; the pony was swinging from one side to the other—I saw a four-wheeled van coming in the opposite direction at about five miles an hour on its right side of the road, about 4 or 5 feet from the kerb—the prisoner

ran into the van; his off wheel caught the off wheel of the van—the lady and baby were thrown out, and the baby fell under her—the near side shaft of the prisoner's cart broke—a policeman picked the lady and the baby up, and the baby was carried to a doctor's—I noticed the prisoner after the accident; I should say he was intoxicated from his strange behaviour; he never attended to his horse after the accident, he let the bystanders do so, and tied up the shaft, and he wanted to get up into the cart and drive away with the shaft in that broken state—he was walking unsteadily; I noticed that particularly; I did not speak to him—he was not thrown out of the cart—the cause of the lady falling was the shaft breaking.

Prisoner. As I was coming along I pulled on one side to let a tramcar pass me, and then I pulled behind on the same metals for nine or ten yards before I could get the wheels away; that was how the shaft broke, and when they got out the cart scudded along and caught the near hind wheel of the van with my near hind wheel. I pulled up within two yards of the collision, and if I had been driving at a furious rate I could not have pulled up in fifty yards. The cob does not require any driving. I was very much upset about the lady and child falling out; that was what seemed to be intoxication.

Witness. There are tram-rails in the road—he was on tke crown of the road—he could not very well have got the wheels in the tram-rails—they are on each side of the road.

MAHIA AMOS (Re-examined). I heard afterwards that a tramcar had passed us, but I did not notice it at the time, my attention was on the baby.

WILLIAM GEORGE THOMAS . I am a stonemason, of 23, Palmerston Road, Finsbury—on the morning of 8th October I was in the Seven Sisters Road—I heard a trap coming behind me; I looked round and saw a lady, the prisoner, and a little girl in the trap—it was coming at a very fast pace, I believe about 12 miles an hour—it passed me—I saw a van coming In the opposite direction towards me on its proper side, two or three feet from the kerb—the prisoner seemed to pull his off rein, I could not say that he did, but he seemed to go right across and catch the near hind-wheel of the van; it might have been, the off wheel, I mean his near wheel—the lady fell out, and the baby underneath her—I noticed the prisoner after he got out of the trap; he seemed to me to be drunk, because he could not stand, he seemed to fall from one side to the other.

By theCOURT. That was my reason for thinking him drunk—I never saw a person who was very much shocked and frightened—after the policeman came out from the doctor's the prisoner was going to get up and drive away with the trap when the shaft was tied up—the policeman stopped him and told him he would have to go to the station, and he used disgusting language—we had a job to get him there—he said, "I am not b——well going, I am not b——well drunk."

Prisoner. I never said such words; the policeman said, "You are the worse for drink," and I said, "I am not."

THOMAS HOARE . I am in the service of Mr. Charter, baker and confectioner, of Barnsbury—on this morning I was driving a horse and four-wheeled van along Seven Sisters Road towards Finsbury Park, on my proper side, about four feet from the kerb—I was going five or six miles an hour—I first saw the prisoner in the cart about 30 yards off—he

seemed to be coming about 12 miles an hour as near as I could guess, and he was on the wrong side of the road, the off side—he was driving towards ray trap, and when he was two or three yards near me I tried to pull off nearer to the pavement, and the wheel of his trap caught the band round the tree-box of my van—I was not thrown out—I pulled up at once, and saw the lady and baby lying in the road—the prisoner drew up on the other side of the road and stopped there for some time—there were no other carts just at this part of the road, the road was quite clear—it is a very wide road; there was nothing to prevent his going right along on his own side, he had a clear road before him—I saw him afterwards; he appeared to me to be drunk; I did not speak to him—he resisted the policeman when he was being taken in charge, he did not seem to care to go—there was nothing more that made me think he was the worse for drink—he resisted the policeman, and did not seem to stand straight.

GEORGE BRIDEN (Policeman Y 840). I was in Seven sisters Road—I heard the noise of a collision behind me—I looked round and saw a lady under the cart—I lifted her up; the baby was underneath her—I took her and the baby to Dr. Berry's—after I came out I saw the prisoner—I say he was drunk, by the way he walked and talked; he could not talk plainly, he could not walk straight; he seemed to stagger very much, and he smelt very strongly of drink—he said it was the other mau's fault, that was the only reason he gave—I did not see what pace he was going at, he was behind me.

By theCOURT. He smelt very strongly of drink—I was close to him; a good number of people were close to him—the witness Thomas was as close to him as I was, and all the witnesses were close enough to smell him—I think it was spirit that he smelt of, I could not exactly tell the smell of the spirit; I am sure it was spirit, I think it was rum—he could not walk straight or stand steady—I saw him walk, I daresay 10 yards, before I took him into custody; he staggered—he did not go quietly, he resisted—I laid my hand on him and led him, and another constable assisted me—I never noticed a man who was very much shocked and frightened at anything—the accident occurred half an hour before I took him into custody, and the staggering occurred at the time I spoke to him half an hour after the accident—it was reported that the child was dead, and I expect the witnesses stayed to see.

JOHN MACFARREN (Police Inspector Y). I have been in the force over 19 years—I was at the police-station about 11 o'clock when the prisoner was brought there—I noticed that he was drunk, from his flushed face, his thick articulation, and his unsteady gait—he also smelt of drink, but I did not pay much attention to that, for a very small quantity of drink will make a man smell—it appeared to be rum—the charge was made against him of being drunk and causing injury to the child—the carman was explaining to me how the collision occurred, and the prisoner said, "Be careful what you say, it was your fault"—nothing more passed—the prisoner was detained in custody; he was too drunk to appear before the Magistrate that day, I did not take him for that reason.

By theCOURT. The Magistrate was sitting at Clerkenwell up to 4 o'clock—it was 11 o'clock when the prisoner was brought in—the police-court is nearly three miles off—he was taken before the Magistrate the following morning and remanded—bail was offered—the Magistrate

would have accepted bail, but none was taken—on 22nd October, after the death of the child, he was charged with causing its death—I read the charge over to him, and he said, "What about the man that was driving the van? he was on his wrong side of the road"—it was just on 12 o'clock when he was brought in—I gave him something to eat about 3 or 4 o'clock—I asked him previous to that if he would have anything to eat, and he would not have it—he had no money—he was so drunk at 1 o'clock that I could not take him before the Magistrate; the Magistrate would have objected to him at that time—I examined him at 2 o'clock—he was asleep in the cell; I woke him up and spoke to him, and I thought he was not fit to go—he was rational to a certain amount; he was thick in his speech—I did not know him before, but I have heard him speak since quite different—if he had been sober I should have started from the station at 3 o'clock to go before the Magistrate—the Magistrate will not take any case after 4 o'clock—at 2 o'clock he was so drunk that he could not have gone, that was my judgment—I had nobody else to send at 2 o'olock; to the best of my recollection I did not send any one before the Magistrate that afternoon—he would have walked there with one of my men; there was a constable there at 2 o'clock.

EDWARD AMOS . I am the husband of the first witness—the prisoner has been in my service about three or four months—on Wednesday morning, 8th October, I called him up at about half-past 3 o'clock, and he started with me to go to the Metropolitan Meat Market—he had some coffee there at 4 o'clock—I did not see him after that—I left him to go back home; he merely took me to the market—he was perfectly sober when he left me—I saw him next day at the police-court—it took three-quarters of an hour to drive from home to. the market.

SOLOMON GEORGE WATSON . I am a registered medical practitioner, of 7, Duncan Villas, Wood Green—on 8th October I was sent for to see the deceased child—I had it stripped and examined it carefully—it was then alive—there was a bruise on the left aide of the head—it was suffering from concussion of the brain—it rallied for a day or two, and subsequently had convulsions and died from fracture of the skull and injury to the brain.

MARIA AMOS (Re-examined). The prisoner had no rum at his breakfast that I saw, nothing whatever—he told me he would have some ale if I did not object, and he took a can to fetch it, but he came back with it empty—I said "Did not you have the ale?"—he said "No," and I said "Come and have your breakfast."

indecent assault upon the same child, upon which no evidence was offered.— NOT GUILTY

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, November 19th, 1884

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18841117-33

33. CHARLES ARNOLD (17) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. WILKINSONandHICKSProsecuted; MR. KEITH FRITH Defended.

ARTHUR JONES . I am an assistant manager at Lockhart's coffee shop, Covent Garden—about 2.15 a.m. on 9th August I served the prisoner with a cup of tea, price 1d.—he put down a half-crown—I found it was bad, bent it in the tester, showed it to the prisoner, and said "What do you call this?"—he did not speak—I said "Where did you get this from?"—he said from a public-house, but I cannot remember the name of the public-house now; it was somewhere near Neal Street—he told me the sign; he mentioned Neal Street, which is close by; he lives there—I sent for a constable and gave him in charge with the coin—he was remanded at the police-court and then discharged.

Cross-examined. I had never seen him before—the door is at the side of the counter—he saw me break the coin, and still stood there; he was very fidgety.

Re-examined. I was present when he gave the constable a different story downstairs, and that influenced me in giving him in charge.

WILLIAM BROWN (Policeman E 215). The prisoner was given into my custody—I took him downstairs, away from the number of people in the shop to search him—I asked him where he got the half-crown from; he said "I got it from a gentleman somewhere near Hayward's Heath," or somewhere near Brighton, I cannot remember where—he gave the name of Arthur Harris, and an address at 15, Neal Street, which was false.

Cross-examined. I have been in the police seven years—I have never been told not to say an address was false; I am sorry if I made a mistake—I have no one from the house to say if he lived there—I heard him say he supposed he had got it from a gentleman somewhere near Brighton that he had been working for; he did not mention the name—I think he said somewhere near Hayward's Head—at the police court he said he had been working for Mr. Jackson; I made no inquiries, because he was acquitted—he did not tell the Magistrate he was a country lad, and had not been long in London.

EDWARD CHARLES THORNTON . My father keeps a milk shop at 2, Westmoreland Street, Marylebone—at 7 p.m. on 24th October I served the prisoner with a glass of milk and two eggs, which came to 3d.—he put down a half-crown and I gave him 2s. 3d.—I left the half-crown on the desk—there was no other money there—my father came in and asked me in the prisoner's presence what he had given me; I pushed him the half-crown and said "This"—my father took it up, looked at it, said it was bad, and sent me for a constable, and the prisoner was given in custody.

Cross-examined. I did not find a policeman directly—the prisoner stood there all the time—I don't know if two half-crowns and 2d. in coppers were found in his pocket when locked up—if he had only 2d. it would be

too little to pay for what he ordered, and he would have to change a half-crown.

EDWARD JEFERIES THORNTON . I am a dairyman, living at 2, Westmoreland Street—about 7 p.m. on 24th October I went into the shop and saw the prisoner and my son there—I closed the door leading to the street and bolted it, and then said, to my son in the prisoner's presence, "What has he given you?"—he pushed the coin from the desk and said "This, father."—I took it in my hand, saw it was bad, and said "Look sharp and fetch a policeman"—when the policeman came I gave the prisoner in charge, and I broke the half-crown in the policeman's presence and handed it to him—I had said to the prisoner "You have had me before"—a customer came; I unbolted the door; the prisoner made a step towards the door, and I threatened if he went to the door that I would knock him down—when the customer had gone he said "I hope you don't think I have had you before; I have another half-crown I will give you rather than you will look me up"—I am not sure if he offered me another—when the constable came I asked my son if he had given him any change, and told the constable to search the prisoner—he turned his pockets out, and there was, I think, a half-crown, two shillings, 3d., and 2d.—I asked my son what change he had given him; he said "2s. 3d."

Cross-examined. After he had been in my shop on the previous day I found a bad half-crown in my pocket with other half-crowns.

Re-examined. I fixed on him because he was very nervous in front of my counter when he passed what I thought was the first bad half-crown—he came in on Monday the 20th, and I found the bad coin on the Tuesday, and on the 24th he came in again—I clear the till at intervals during the day, and only leave small change in it—I have a piece of the coin I broke that day; it turned out to be a good one—I commenced to destroy it, and my son then cut this piece out—it was a good coin.

PHILIP HOLDON (Policeman D 172). I was called and the prisoner was given into my custody for uttering a bad half-crown—he said he did not know it was bad—Mr. Thornton said "This man has had me before"—the prisoner said "I do not know that I have had you before"—I searched him and found a good half-crown and 2d., two pawn-tickets, and miscel-laneous things; the other money he had given up to Mr. Thornton—I took him to the station—when charged by the inspector he said he had the bad money in change for a half-sovereign at Bishop's Road Railway Station, London.

Cross-examined. He said he had been from Bishop's Road to South Kensington, or South Kensington to Bishop's Road—I do not know that during the continuance of the Health Exhibition complaints have been made to the police of bad money being given in change—he said he should not think of attempting it at the same shop a second time—he also said he did not know it was bad—I do not know a Mr. Jackson of the Philanthropists' Society's School, Redhill.

ALFRED JOHN WEBSTER . Both these coins are bad, but not from the same mould—this piece has been cut out of a good half-crown.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I received three half-crowns from a Mr. Jackson. I put down one half-crown in a public-house to pay for some drink; one of the lads I was with picked it up and said "No, I will pay for it," and I am not certain that he gave me the

35. JOHN WATTS (38) , Robbery with violence on Henry Humphreys and stealing his watch.

MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMSProsecuted; MR. MOYSEYDefended.

GEOGRE HENRY HUMPHREYS . I am a "packing-case maker, at 24, Glitter Lane—about 8.15 p.m. on 30th October I was at Aldersgate St. Station smoking a cigar; I got up from a seat and went towards a train to get in—I had a gold watch and chain, and as I was going up to the train the prisoner struck me a violent blow just under my nose, which produced a flow of blood; I put up my left hand and grasped him by the throat; he was about to deal me another blow, and I seized his wrist—my watch-chain was hanging down—I shouted out "Police," and said I had been robbed, and asked them to close the station door, not to allow any persons to pass out—two railway officials came up and secured the prisoner—I felt in my pocket and missed my watch—the prisoner was taken to the station and searched—after he was stripped to his drawers and shirt he said "Now have I got it?"—I noticed that his left foot moved about, and said "What has he got under his foot?"—the constable moved him on one side, and said "Your watch," and it was found there—for three or four days my lip was very swollen; the sinews inside were cut; I bit them away and got all right—about 3 or 4 o'clock next morning my nose began bleeding, which it had not done for years—I felt the effects for three or four days—my watch was worth 40l.

Cross-examined. This was from a quarter to half-past 8; I left my office at 7.80; I had had a pint bottle of claret with my dinner at 2.30, and on the road to the station I met a gentleman I do business with, and he asked me to have a drink, and I had threepennyworth of whisky—that is all I had to drink that day—I just missed a train when I got to the station, and had to wait a quarter of an hour—I was perfectly sober—I swear the official did not take me by the arm; I saw him in the Court—I held the prisoner after he struck me; he said I was choking him; I said "I will kill you; what have I done to you?"—he was going to hit me again—I did not know he had got my watch then; he was very clever over it—I have learnt to box, and have had several punches on the nose, but I never had one like that.

By theCOURT. There were no people on the station, but there were people towards the entrance—I was almost at a standstill when this took place; there was nobody just in my immediate neighbourhood at the time—nobody else attacked me; I called out "Any man, woman, or child who approaches me I will have arrested as an accomplice."

JOHN CLARKE . I am ticket examiner at Aldersgate St. Station—on the evening of 30th October, about 8.42, I saw the prisoner standing against the refreshment bas on the platform of the station—I told the prosecutor that his train was coming in; directly after he called out "Police"—I turned round and saw the prosecutor, who was bleeding very much from the mouth and nose, holding the prisoner; I caught hold of the prisoner's

right arm and held him till we got to the police-station—he swore that he had not got the watch, and he wished to catch the train—while taking the prisoner down the platform a gentleman handed me the bow of the watch that had been picked up.

Cross-examined. The prisoner had been on the platform about ten minutes—I cannot say if he had been at the bar all that time—I did not assist the prosecutor to the train at all—there were a few people at the lower end of the platform; we were beginning to get slack—I should think there were not forty—a minute is allowed for the trains to stop—it is necessary to make Somewhat of a rush to get in.

Re-examined. There was no one else near the refreshment bar.

THOMAS FREE (Policeman 124). I received the prisoner from Clarke, and took him to Snow Hill Police-station, where he was charged—he said "I did not steal the watch, and I don't know anything about it"—I searched him; he stripped voluntarily; I saw the watch slip out from between his right leg and the leg of his drawers on to the ground, and I picked it up—the prosecutor, who was bleeding from his nose, identified it.

Cross-examined. The prisoner undressed voluntarily—the prosecutor appeared excited, but he was sober.

GUILTY .

He thenPLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at this Court in June, 1878.— Six Years' Penal Servitude and Twenty-five Strokes with the Cat.

Reference Number: t18841117-36

36. GEORGE JONES (37) and CAROLINE ELIZABETH HUMPHREYS (39) , Stealing 30 yards of cloth, the goods of John Palmer. Second Count, receiving.

MR. PELLEWProsecuted; MR. MOYSEYDefended.

EDWARD BROOKS . I am a pawnbroker, of 110, High Street, Shoreditch—on Friday, 16th October, about 2 o'clock, Jones came in and offered in pledge about 3 1/2 yards of cloth; I refused to take it; he went out, and I followed him and informed the police—about an hour afterwards Humphreys came in with the same piece, 3 1/2 yards—I detained her and took her down to the station—I had said to the man "How much do you want?"—he said "Eight shillings"—I said I did not take in shoddy stuff just to get rid of him—I told the woman I had had information from the police, and asked her if she would walk down to the station and give a satisfactory account of it to the inspector—I had had information at 10 in the morning—this is the piece of cloth—there are two pieces, 3 1/2 yards in each.

WILLIAM GABRIEL . I am manager to George Palmer, a tailor, of 119, Cheapside—this cloth is his—we missed on 16th October about 30 yards, worth 4l. 15s. the whole—the prisoners were not in our employ, and had no right to take it.

Cross-examined. There are two pieces of stuff; they are of a pattern made specially for us—I swear they originally constituted one piece—I said before the Magistrate that the cloth was my property; it is mine on behalf of my master—I act on his behalf—the value of this piece is about 25s.; I think I said 20s., 25s., or 30s. before the Magistrate—the whole is worth 4l. 15s.—I swear it is our engaged pattern; another tailor might not have that; it is confined to ourselves—the prisoners could not have come by it properly; they could not have bought it

because it was there two or three minutes before I missed it—it was stolen from inside the doorway—they might have bought it from some thief.

Re-examined. Manufacturers make cloth on a special pattern ordered by a tailor, and keep that pattern for that tailor—this is a very uncommon mixture—any one not in the trade would not see much difference, but a tailor would.

EDGAR KIEL (Policeman H 67). On Friday, 17th October, from information received, I found Jones in the Hackney Road about 2.30 p.m.—I said "What have you in that bundle?"—he said "What odds Is that to you?"—I said "I want to see what there is in the bag"—he opened the bundle and produced this piece of cloth.

Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate that the prisoner said to me "What odds is that to you?"—I heard my deposition read and I signed it.

(The words did not occur in the deposition.)

HENRY EAST (Detective Officer). I was at the Commercial Street Police-station about 2.30 on 17th October when Humphreys was brought there by the pawnbroker—I said "I am going to make some inquiries respecting the cloth," which at that time was in the office—she said "I cannot say any more than I have already said; a woman came into my shop at 6 o'clock last night and asked me 6s. for it; thinking it was worth it I gave it to her; I never saw her before, and I should not know her again"—she was then charged—I am certain it was the 17th.

EDWARD BROOKS (Re-examined). I may have made a mistake in the date; it may have been the 17tn—I am certain it was a Friday.

Hamphreys received a good character.

EDGAR KIEL (Re-examined by theCOURT). I asked Jones how he came by it—he said "I bought it of a man; I don't know who he is; I should not know him if I saw him again."

38. CHARLES MAURICE COLE (35) to stealing 26l. 2s. 5d., 100l., and 100l. of the London and County Banking Company, Limited, his masters.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t18841117-39

39. EDWARD RILOT (28) to stealing on 25th July 5l., and on 28th July 10l., off Sidney Smith, his master; also to making three false entries in a cash book with intent to defraud. (He received a good character.)— Six Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t18841117-40

40. ARTHUR HARRINGTON (19) to conspiring with another person to obtain a situation as potman with intent to defraud; also to stealing 1s., the money of Harry Goodwin Marner, his master.— Nine Months' Hard Labour. And [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t18841117-41

41. JAMES STANFORD (17) to burglary in the dwelling-house of William Morgan and stealing 8l., his money.— Nine Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

HENRY PRICE . I was butler to Mr. Williams—in March last, in consequence of an advertisement in a newspaper, I called at 64, Finsbury Pavement, which is the Defence Society, and saw Jervis—I told him that I came in consequence of his letter—he told me I should have to perform the duties of clerk and collector, that my salary would be 30s. a week, and I must deposit 25l., which would be returned to me in three months—this agreement was them drawn up (This was dated 15th March, between the witness and Morley Jervis, Secretary to the Defence Society, by which the witness was engaged at a salary of 1l. 10s. a week, he agreeing to deposit 25l., to be returned at the end of three months, or on the termination of the agreement, one month's notice of which was to be given on either side)—I sent up the 25l. by post, and received this letter (Dated 2nd April, 1884, requesting the witness to postpone coming till April 21st, as he Jervis, was going for a holiday)—I went there on the 21st and saw a clerk named Dean—I did nothing scarcely the first day or two—I first saw Jervis, I think, on the Wednesday—I received my salary on the Saturday—I was there four or five weeks and then could not get my wages, and saw Jervis and asked him about it—he said he could not pay me then; I said that I wanted to get some dinner, and he gave me a half-crown, and during the day he gave me a sovereign; he said the business was at a standstill through the solicitor leaving him, and he was obliged to dispose of it, and he would pay me out of it and would pay me the 25l. deposit out of the money he was going to receive—I afterwards called at the office, and also wrote for the return of the 25l.—I subsequently received this note (This was dated June 6th, from Jervis, stating that he would send the money either to-morrow or early next week)—I also received these letters of June 11th, June 16th and June 22nd (Apologising for not sending the money, and offering to pay 10 per cent. interest)—I afterwards brought and action against Jervis to recover my 25l. deposit and the arrears of my salary; I recovered 15l.—on August 6th I received this letter (This was from Jervis to the witness, stating that he has acted with surprising vindictiveness in suing him for more than he ought, and offering him 15l. 8s. as the balance, and stating that if that was not accepted he should apply to set aside the judgment)—while I was at the office I saw Kent about twice, but he did not do any work there—I don't remember seeing Garland—a lot of men called at the office and saw Jervis in a private room—no one was employed in the office with me except Dean—I gave Jervis the 25l. Because he told me that they were doing well, and he hoped to raise my wages as the Society got on.

Cross-examined byMR. HOPKINS. I read the agreement and knew what I was signing—I was paid 30s. for three weeks; I was there four weeks and three days, I think—I paid the 25l. at his request by way of security—if I gave notice I was at liberty to leave, and if he did not give me notice I went on—when I was leaving he said that he was going to dispose of the business; I did not say that before the Magistrate, because I did not think of it—I took the situation and paid the security because I thought it was a bond fide business—I did not hear that term at the police court for the first time—the office was very nicely got up, but there was no work going on when I first went—several people came every day, and for aught I know they came to obtain the assistance of the Society—

I do not know Greenwood—I know Middleton; he was not employed there; he told me he went there on his own business—Jervis did not pay me the 15l. before I took proceedings, it was after I got judgment—I put in the execution for 28l. 10s., and it was 35l. with the costs; I put in the execution for the balance—I received two weeks' salary when I was not at work; Mr. Jervis sent it me after I left—I did not sue for that only, for the balance—not satisfied with being paid for two weeks for work I had not done, I sued for two more weeks—I am not paying a penny towards the expenses of this prosecution—I went to the police court in consequence of a subpoena I received—I saw it in the paper—I had a letter from Mr. Hare, a solicitor, next day, and I went to his office and had a long talk with his clerk, after which I went and gave evidence—I first asked for my deposit when he gave me notice—I have seen Bullock there—I do not know that he is a member of the Society—I did not see the list of the committee on the circular—I do not know Dr. Richardson, or that he is a member of the committee—I have seen Mr. Elliott come to the office—there may have been a committee, but I never saw them—Jervis told me that he would lay my letter before the committee, and I was to call again for it, and I called again in an hour's time, but did not see any one there—I went to the inner office.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. I believe I went first to the office on 21st April, and remained till about May 15th—I don't remember seeing Garland there—a call-book was kept, and every person's name who called was put down—I have not looked through it recently—Dean kept it—he was there when I left, but he told me he had not received any wages—it was not in consequence of anything Garland told me that I parted with my money.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. Kent did not tell me that he had placed his pecuniary affairs in Jervis's hands—he called there once or twice.

ALFRED BYCE . I am a sailor—in June last I saw an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph, and wrote this letter to 64, Finsbury Pavement, and got this letter in reply (This was from Jervis, offering him the post of collector in the Defence Society, and asking him to call next day)—this agreement (produced) was enclosed in another letter for me to read over, which I did, and returned it—I afterwards called at the office and had a conversation with Jervis—he told me that it would be a very good situation for me; it would be a permanent thing, and the salary would not be all, there would be perquisites—he gave me a card similar to this (produced), "Knowledge is power, union is strength. Defence Society, with 170 branches. Answers given in legal objections, advices on partnership, &c."—he said my duties would bo very light, and that there must be a deposit of 25l. for three months—I was to commence my duties on July 14th. (A receipt for the 25l. appeared at the bottom of the agreement, signed Morley Jervis.) I then received this letter (Dated July 10th, postponing the witness's attendance for a fortnight, in consequence of Mr. Jervis having a little dispute with the committee, and requesting him to call)—I called at the office, but did not see Jervis—I saw Garland, who told me there was a little dispute with the committee, and they could not take me on for a day or two, there were two or three politicians in it, and they wanted to buy them out, and I should hear from him again in a day or two—Dean was there, but I saw Garland in the inner room—on 26th July I received this letter: "Dear Sir,—I will not trouble you to come on Monday, but

please give me a call on Thursday, at 2 o'clock."—I called, and saw Garland—he said that he would return the money, as they did not want me, and he had a cheque made out, but it wanted two or three of the committee to sign it—I had received this letter from Garland to say that they would dispense with my services, as he could not arrange with the committee—I Know his writing, and his initials are there—I spoke to him about it, and he said that the cheque was made out, and only wanted two or three of the committee to sign it—I said I would waive the salary if he would return the money—I then received this letter. (This was dated. 8th August: "Dear Sir,—I have explained our interview, and a cheque shall be despatched to you as early next week as possible. P.P. Morley Jervis.") I called again at the office and saw Garland and the outside man, Dean—I asked Garland why the cheque was not sent—I wrote to Jervis again, and received this letter. (Dated. July 11th, requesting the witness to call between 3 and 4 o'clock)—I called, and saw Jervis—he told me that the committee had not signed the cheque, but he would send it to me as soon as it was signed—I said that I did not know anything about a committee, he took the money, and to him I looked for it; that I did not like the look of the thing, it was looking rather crooked, but I would wait till Friday, this being Thursday, and if the money was not then forthcoming, he would be sorry for it—he promised that the cheque should be sent on Friday—I saw Kent once, when I called and asked him where Jervis was—he said he was at Worship Street Police-court, and he thought I was very fortunate in getting the situation, as there were 3,000 applicants—I said "That is 2,999 too many"—I never got my money.

Cross-examined byMR. HOPKINS. Jarvis told me three or four times that the cheque was made out, but it had to be countersigned by two members of the committee—I do not recollect his saying that if the committee had not signed it by Friday he would pay it out of his own pocket—to the best of my belief he did not—I do not recollect that I said so at the police-court—I signed my deposition—I do not suggest that the Clerk of the Court imagined it. (The statement appeared in the deposition.) Jarvis gave me this card at the same time I gave him the money; it had nothing to do with making me part with the money—I did not know anything about the 157 branches till I received the card, and that did not induce me to part with my money—I am a prosecutor; I decline to say how much I have paid towards the expenses of the prosecution; I decline to say whether they are being advanced by Mr. Hare—I swore information in this case, and it was true; I suppose the prisoners were taken in custody upon the strength of it—I have sworn that the 157 branches had nothing to do with my paying the money, but in swearing the information it had—Jervis may have drawn my attention to the back of the card, and said "That is the kind of business we do"—I looked upon myself as contracting with Jervis alone, but afterwards Garland came into it; he was the first one that put me off—the 25l. was first mentioned in the advertisement—it afterwards turned out that the money was found in the safe, labelled as mine—when Garland told me that my money was there ready for me I said it was too late, because the warrant was out—I did not refuse to receive it, because it was never offered me—the warrant was out on the Saturday, I believe Mr. Hare applied for it—I made no inquiries about the committee of the

society—there may have been a committee for aught I can say—I have inquired about the branch offices, not before the agreement, but only when I saw there was something wrong, and I inquired from different men who were done as well as myself—I received this letter: "20th August. Sir,—I have received cheque for your deposit; am I to pay it to you or to Mr. Hare, your solicitor? If to you, please call to-morrow at 2 o'clock"—that is in Garland's writing; I got it on Monday morning, but I had communicated with Mr. Hare more than a week before—if I had received my money on the Friday I should have referred it to Mr. Hare—I don't remember swearing in my information that Jervis represented to me that there was a committee—on 1st September I went to the office with two policemen armed with a warrant; it was nearly 10 o'clock—I had seen Mr. Hare between 9.30 and 10 at his office, and then went to Old Street to meet the policemen—Garland and Kent were apprehended on that occasion; I pointed them out—I did not say to kent "Now I have got you"—it was then that Garland said that my 25l. was ready for me—I went to Fleet Street with the constable, and there apprehended Jervis, and I and the detective went in a cab to Old Street station—I did not say to Jervis on the road "I will crush you, by God"—this is the first time I have heard of it—I went to the office to look on, and saw them putting some books together—I saw the police take possession of some of the things; they did not turn the clerk out; they locked up the place—Jervis did not say "You had better think again; all this will ruin us"—he said in the cab that my money was at the office—I did not say "Money be d—"or" Give it to me now," or "My solicitor will get me my money; this is a good job for him."

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. I did not see Garland when I first entered into the agreement or for some time afterwards—it was not in consequence of anything he said that I parted with my money—it may have been as late as July 28th that I saw him first—he sat at a desk writing, or pretending to write; he had the appearance of a clerk employed in the place—you are right in suggesting that I included him in the charge because he put me off; he promised to see that I had it—he told me that he was acting as secretary the first time I saw him—the clerk Dean was always in the outside office; I did not see him keep a call-book, but I saw him speak through a tube—when I got the first letter I asked Garland what he was doing signing Jervis's name, and he said that "P.P. Morley Jervis" was his writing—I thought I should not be right in taking the money after the warrant was issued, and I did not ask for it.

Cross-examined byMR. BLACKWELL. I only saw Kent there once; that was about midday or the afternoon—I did not notice anything wrong about him, but I will not swear that he was not under the influence of drink.

Re-examined. I said in my affidavit that I signed the agreement believing that the society had 157 branches in London and the suburbs; I had no reason to doubt that that was the truth—25l. in notes was found for me at the office—Garland himself told me that he was acting as secretary—when I was there with the police Dean was outside in the outer office; I asked him if Garland was in; Kent was then in the outer office.

HARRY PRICKETT . I am clerk to Mr. Hare, solicitor for the prosecution—on August 15th I was instructed to call at the office of the

Defence Society; I saw Jervis, and asked him if he would let me have a cheque for 25l. for Mr. Byce—he said that the cheque was drawn, and he expected one of their directors back from Jersey to-day, and when he signed it it would be sent on—I asked to see it—after speaking to Mr. Garland he said he could not find it—next day Kent called at our office; Mr. Hare saw him; he said he was a messenger from the society, and asked if we would accept the 25l. without any salary—I believe Mr. Hare said "Yes," but the money was not sent.

Cross-examined byMR. HOPKINS. I am not a law clerk; I am cashier—I decline to answer who has paid Mr. Hare for the expenses of the prosecution, but money has been paid by three of the prosecutors—I decline to answer whether it amounts to 10l.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. I saw one clerk in the outer office—Garland was in the farther office of all, speaking through a tube to some one in the outer office; I did not speak to him—I do not think he was a clerk, or he would not have been sitting where he was.

JOSEPH REED . I am manager to a tobacconist at 11, New Guard Street, Peckham—on 14th June I saw this advertisement in the Daily Telegraph. (This was for a secretary in an office, with a progressive salary, commencing at 100l., security 50l. cash)—I replied, and got this letter. (From Motley Jervis, secretary to the Defence Society, offering the witness 2l. a week, to be increased to 3l., and requesting him to call.)—I called on, I think, June 14th, and saw Jervis—he said the business was to assist him and keep accounts, and take minutes of the meetings—he gate me this prospectus. (This was marked "Printer's proof," giving the names of the President and Vice-Presidents of the Defence Society, and 50 or 60 names on the committee, with the flames of the managing committee in writing, among which, was E.C. Kent, Esq.)—Jervis said that one of the officials of the society had absconded sent 100l., and that was why he wanted the 50l. security—he afterwards sent me this agreement. (Dated 17th June, 1884, for 2l. a week salary, and 50l. deposit)—I then called and saw Jervis and handed him the money, and the agreement was signed—he gave me a promissory note for the 60l. at three months—that has never been paid—I was to commence my duties in a fortnight from the signing of the agreement—I afterwards received this letter. (Dated July 10th, signed by Jervis, and stating that in consequence of a dispute which he was having with the committee, the witness could not commence his duties for a fortnight, but his salary would commence at once.)—I afterwards received this letter: "July 26th. Dear Sir,—I will not trouble you to come on Monday, but please call and see me on Wednesday, at 2 o'clock. J. M. Jervis." I called and saw him—he told me he was having disagreements with title committee, but he thought they would come to his terms, but if they did not he should resign, and he would then let me know, that I might come and receive my money—he said that Lord Randolph Churchill and Lord Shaftesbury would be asked to become Presidents—on 4th August I received this letter: "Dear Sir,—I much regret to inform you I am unable to arrange with the committee; on the 25th instant the cheque shall be sent for your deposit, with five weeks' salary added, and I regret you have been put to inconvenience. M. Jervis." I called at the office, but did not see either of the defendants—I then received this letter: "8th August. Dear Sir,—I shall be happy to see you at 2 o'clock to-morrow. Yours truly, M. Jervis, per V. Garland."

I called and saw Garland—I asked him for some money, as I had a month's salary then due—he said that he had not sufficient to pay me the amount, but he gave me a fortnight's salary, 4l., and I gave him this receipt—on 26th August I received this letter. "Dear Sir,—I am sorry I can't wait any longer; if you wish to see me call between 11 and 12 to-morrow. Yours truly, Vernon Garland." On 27th August I received this letter: "Dear Sir, I have just received a telegram from Mr. Jervis that he cannot reach town till Monday, when a cheque shall be sent to you. I trust that will not inconvenience you. Vernon Garland." On 31st August I received this letter: "Ipswich. Dear Sir,—I find I am unable to be in London till Friday next, 5th inst., and shall be pleased if you will give me a call to arrange with you. Morley Jervis." I have never seen any of the defendants since, and have not received any of the 50l.—I parted with my money because I thought it was a suitable and remunerative situation, and I believed the terms of the prospectus.

Cross-examined byMR. HOPKINS. The arrangement was not made before the prospectus was handed to me—I took the prospectus away with me, and I believe this to be the same by the words "Printer's proof" on it—I don't think I left it behind on the table—I swore an information before this case began—the agreement was sent to me by post; I considered it satisfactory, and signed the copy of it—I think I said at the police-court that I did not sign an agreement; that is a mistake—Jervis gave me the promissory note of his own accord; it is signed "Win. Blewitt, George Elliott, and Morley Jervis"—it is not due yet—I understood that Blewitt and Jervis were members of the committee—I have not applied to any of the defendants for payment; they were apprehended long before it became due—I am one of the prosecutors—I have paid nothing—I have seen very little of Mr. Hare; I have seen his clerks—I was paid two weeks' salary though I did no work—the agreement has not been broken—I said at the police-court "I have nothing to complain of"—I did not volunteer to give evidence there—I received a communication from Mr. Hare's office—I said at the police-court that I had no doubt the money would be paid.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORAN. I had not seen Garland when I parted with my money—I did not see him till the beginning of August—have seen him in the office since—he seemed to be more than a clerk.

Cross-examined byMR. BLACKWELL. I say nothing about Kent—I should not like to say in whose writing the name of Kent is.

CHARLES MORTLOOK . I live at 46, Haverstock Road, Kentish Town—on July 3rd I saw an advertisement in the Daily Chronicle—I communicated with the address given and received this letter from the Defence Society: "Please call here at 10 to-morrow respecting the advertisement, and ask to see Mr. Kent"—I called and saw the clerk, Dean; I afterwards saw Kent, who said that the society required an honest young man, as the present collector had embezzled large sums and had been discharged, and they wanted a collector and manager—he introduced me to Mr. Jervis as the secretary, who said he supposed Mr. Kent had told me what my duties would be, and that the committee had decided to have a small security for the future, and my application would be put before the committee, and I should receive a letter from him that day or the next—next day I received this letter. (Dated 7th July, and offering him the situation, enclosing an agreement, and requesting him to call and sign it if he accepted

it; signed, M. Jervis, Secretary.)—this is the agreement (produced)—I wrote a reply, and on 8th July received this letter: "Yours to hand. Please call here to-morrow to sign agreement. Kindly bring the name of some friend as a reference."—I then received this letter: "July 10th. Dear Sir,—If Saturday will suit you, please call to sign, if not, on Monday 12th." On 12th July I received this letter: "Dear Sir,—Please call on Monday between one and two to sign agreement, as I must report by Tuesday"—I called on Tuesday, 14th July, and saw Kent and Dean: Kent said that Mr. Jervis was very busy, and went into his office and brought out the agreement signed by Jervis—I was engaged at 2l. a week, and paid 20l. as security—I was to commence my duties after Bank Holiday, but on August 4th I received this letter. (Requesting him not to come till Monday week; signed, M. Jercis)—I then received this letter: "Aug. 9th. Dear Sir,—It will be more convenient for you not to commence your duties until Mr. Jervis has returned from his holidays, &c., but your salary will commence from Monday next. Should you wish to see me, please to call on Monday next at 1 o'clock." I went there on the Monday and saw Kent, but I forget what took place—I did not commence my duties, and on 29th August I received this letter: "Dear Sir, I have to inform you that we have arranged with our present collector to continue in our employ. I must ask you to consider this a fortnight's notice. A cheque will be sent to you; p. p. Morley Jervis, V. Garland." I then went to the office and saw Dean and Kent—I told them I thought it was a very shabby arrangement after taking my money—they asked me what it was to do with me; I said "A great deal"—Kent said "Then you had better write to the society"—I said "I shall call and see the committee when it sits"—I asked when it sat, and Dean said "On Wednesday at two o'clock"—I went to the office on Wednesday, but it was closed—I received this letter on 1st September. (From Jervis, asking the witness to call on Friday)—I parted with my 20l. in consequence of the inducements held out by Kent—he represented that he was manager of the society, that I should have very little to do with Jervis, and I should be under him, and if I was steady it would be a situation for life—he never gave me a chance to see whether I was steady or unsteady.

Cross-examined byMR. HOPKINS. The situation was what I wanted; the fact of its being a society did not influence me—I was not one of the prosecutors; I consider myself one now—I was not told that the society had branches—I was present when the defendants were taken in custody on September 1st—I was there just after Mr. Byce got there—I was at Mr. Hare's office that morning when the warrant was read—when I called to see if the committee met at 2 o'clock they were in custody.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. It was not in consequence of any representation that Garland made to me that I parted with my money.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. I did not state my evidence to Mr. Hare before I went to the police-court—it was Dean who said "What has that to do with you?"—I don't remember whether I mentioned Kent suggesting that I should call and see the committee, as they sat 2 o'clock on Wednesday; I think I mentioned his saying that he was manager of the society—I have not said to that gentleman (Some one in Court) that I would make it hot for Kent as he had caused me to lose the situation I had, or that I would pile on the agony against Kent because he was the instrument; nothing like it—I have not said that I would make my

evidence as strong as I could, more than I swore to at the police-court—that gentleman represented that Kent was innocent, and I said that he was not, as he induced me to part with my money; he said he was afraid I was very hard on his client; I did not then say that I should make it hot for him, and swear as hard as I could against him—he told me that he had to sell up his home, and I said "That is nothing to what I have had to do."

Re-examined. He did not say that Kent was his client; he said that he was afraid I was very hard on his man—I first saw that gentleman. (Mr. Purkiss) last-session; he spoke to me in a public-house over the way; they came to me and told me that Kent was an innocent man, and had to sell up his home, and had not had a penny of the money received from the victims—they did not say "victims," but that was the meaning of it.

By theJURY. I have not had my money back or any salary.

CHARLES EDWIN ALDRIDGE . I live at 20, Nella Road, Brockley—on 3rd July I saw this advertisement in the Daily Telegraph, and addressed a reply to "Manager"—I received a letter asking me to call at the office of the society and ask for Mr. Kent—I called and saw Mr. Kent—he said I should be required to collect money and to attend to office duties when necessary, or anything else I was told to do, and that there were some 2,000 applicants, and showed me a number of letters indicating that a large amount of business was being done—I gave references, not to Kent, but to Jervis—on July 19th I received this letter. (Signed by Jervis, and enclosing a copy of an agreement, asking the witness to fix a day to sign it)—I replied, and fixed the 28th, but on July 24th I got this letter: "Yours to hand; kindly return the copy of the agreement, and state what time you will call. M. Jervis." I called at the office on Monday and saw Kent; he said that Mr. Jervis was not in, he was at Worship Street—I said "I will call again," which I did in the afternoon, and saw Kent, and told him I should like to feel a little more satisfied before I paid my money—he said that he had 2,000l. At stake in the society, and if I lost mine he should lose his, and I then paid him the money and signed the agreement, and Kent signed as a witness. (This was dated July 28th, engaging the witness at 2l. a week, he depositing 20l. as security, to be returned on the termination of the agreement)—on August 9th I received this letter. (Signed by Garland, and stating that it would be more convenient for the witness to postpone commencing his duties till Mr. Jervis returned, but that his salary would commence from Monday next, and requesting him to call.)—I called on the Monday and saw Garland; he said he had no knowledge of Mr. Jervis's arrangements, but as he was away he thought it would be better for me to commence my duties after he returned—I afterwards received this letter. (Dated August 31st, 1884, from Jervis at Ipswich, appointing to see the witness at the office on the 5th at 4 o'clock.)—next day, September 1st, Jervis was arrested in London—I have only received one week's salary, which Garland paid me.

Cross-examined byMR. JOPKINS. No one went with me till I paid the money; my brother was with me then—I did not introduce him as my legal adviser—I did not offer a reference to Mr. Elliott or to any one—Kent may have said to me "By all means satisfy yourself, and don't sign unless you are quite satisfied"—nothing was said about branch offices,

but Kent said that the society was a flourishing one, and he pointed to the papers.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. I had not seen Garland when I signed the agreement.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. I am not aware that Kent had placed his pecuniary affairs in Jervis's hands—he may have had 2,000l., at stake.

JOHN BENCE . I live at 3, Martha Cottages, Walthamstow—on 21st July I saw an advertisment in the Daily News—I replied to the Defence Society, and received this letter. (Requesting him to call next day and ask to see Mr. Kent)—I called at the office, and Kent was in the room while I had an interview with another man who was introduced as Kent, in the outer office—he asked me many questions as to my qualifications, and said he would lay them before the directors, and give me an answer next day, and that the directors' idea was that if a man had 26l. and 30l. he must be an industrious man—I was to deposit 25l—on 24th July I received this letter enclosing this agreement—on 28th July I called at the office, and produced the agreement. (This was for 2l. a week salary, and 25l. deposit. Signed, M. Jervis.)—I saw Kent, and paid the 25l. deposit, believing the genuineness of the thing as put to me by Mr. Kent—I was to commence my duties on 11th August, but on 9th August I received this letter. (This was from. Garland, asking him to postpone his attendance till Mr. Jervis returned, and offering to see him on Monday at 2 o'clock)—I called on Monday and saw Garland—he said that Jervis had gone to the seaside, and he did not wish me, to commence till he returned—I asked if it was not possible for me to see Jervis before that—he said he had a bad leg and had to bathe it three times a day in sea water—on August 29th I received this letter: "Dear Sir,—I have to inform you that we have arranged with our present clerk to continue in our service, and you will not be required on 13th September. A cheque will be sent to you for 25l. and salary p. p. Morley Jervis V. Garland.") I have not received any portion of my money back or any salary.

Cross-examined byMR. DOBLEY. I never entered on my duties at all—I received a fortnight's notice on a Saturday, and on the Monday following I heard that the prisoners were in custody, and not able to transact any business with me—I first saw Mr. Hare on the morning that they were arrested—I object to say what I am doing now—it was Dean who introduced me to a Mr. Kent, who was not the defendant Kent—I never saw him again—the prisoner Kent was looking out at the window, while the other Mr. Kent spoke to me about the business; it was not in consequence of what he said that I made up my mind to accept the situation, as he had to lay it before the directors—I knew that security would be required, and the Guarantee Society was brought up in conversation—I did not know the name of the defendant Kent till he was apprehended, and I have never seen him since—the agreement states that I was liable to dismissal at a fortnight's notice—nothing was said about branches of the society—I trusted to a friend to make the necessary inquiries before I paid my money, and he said he had no doubt of the genuineness of the affair—the prisoner Kent told me when I paid my money that it should be invested in stocks and funds, but in my own name—that was on the Monday following the receipt of the letter saying that I was accepted—he always spoke as "we"—I did not know what his name was; I knew he was an officer of the society—he said "Mr. Jervis is engaged, but I will go in

and see him, and bring the agreement out, and it was through his inducement that I finally entered upon it—I did not ask what his name was, because I thought he was connected with the office—I am here as a witness, but I would prosecute any one who would do me out of 20l., and would pay the expenses—I am not paying any of the expenses; I don't know who is.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. Garland made no statement before I parted with my money.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. I said at the police-court "Kent said 'You shall be comfortable here with us'"—he said that my situation would be permanent, and the money would not go into the general account, but would be banked in my name—no single statement influenced me, but it was the whole of his conversation.

Re-examined. Kent said "Well, for my part, I think a Guarantee society would be better"—he was looking out at the window, but now and then he turned—he could hear every word that was said.

WILLIAM DAVIS . I am a butcher, of 16, Portland Street—on the 22nd July I saw an advertisement in the Daily Chronicle, and wrote to R.R., 172, Fleet Street, and received this answer. (From the Defence Society): "Please call about 3.30 Monday next in answer to your reply about a clerk, and ask to see Mr. Kent"—I called and saw the prisoner Kent—I asked him if Kent was in; he said "Mr. Kent has gone down to Worship Street;" but I was speaking to the prisoner Kent—we had a conversation, and he said that he had received 2,000 applications, and had picked me out for one of them—I asked him what there was to do; he said "To collect money and do a little writing"—on August 1st I received this letter. (This was from Jervis, offering him the situation, and asking him to call and sign the agreement.)—the agreement was enclosed—I called at the office next day and saw Kent again, and told him that I could not then pay a deposit—he asked when I could pay it; I said "On August 7th"—he said "All right"—on 7th August I called again and saw Garland—I asked him if Kent was in; he said that he had gone either to Hereford or Hertford, I forget which—I paid Garland 25l. and he gave me the agreement already signed, with a receipt for 25l. on it—on 15th August I received this letter. (This was from Garland, requesting the witness to postpone commencing his duties till Mr. Jervis returned from the sea.)—I had not seen Jervis then—I called again and saw Garland, who said "It will be no use your coming here, as there will be nothing for you to do; we have nothing to do ourselves"—I afterwards received this letter. (Signed "V. Garland, Secretary," and stating that arrangements had been made with the present collector to continue, and a cheque for the deposit and salary would be sent.)—I have never received my money or salary—I parted with my money because I thought it was a permanent situation and a good salary.

Cross-examined byMR. HOPKINS. I knew that I could be dismissed at a fortnight's notice—it would not have mattered to me whether it was a society or a private firm, so long as it was a good situation—I never made inquiries about the society—I applied for the repayment of my deposit on September 1st; I saw Kent and asked him if he could pay me my money—he said, that he would write to Mr. Kent, who was at the seaside—I am not a prosecutor, and am not paying the expenses of the prosecution—I am hard of hearing.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. No one was present when I had the conversation with Kent—Kent did not require to shout to me; he was within half a yard of me—I did not hear him so well as I hear you—I told the Magistrate that no particular statement of Kent's induced me to part with my money, but that I parted with it on the promise that I should have a permanent situation and be kept on there, otherwise nothing that had been said would have caused me to part with my money.

WILLIAM HENRY ROSSETAS . I live at 25, Johnson's Place, Harrow Road—early in August I saw an advertisement and wrote a letter, and received this reply (Dated August 4, 1884, requesting him to call at the Defence Society, and ash to see Mr. Garland)—I called and saw Garland, who said he had received 208 applications, and six were chosen, and I looked a very likely candidate, that the duties were light but responsible, and that the Society was flourishing—on August 8th I received this letter (Stating that his application had been favourably received, and asking him to call next day; signed, V. Garland)—I called and saw Garland, who introduced me to Jervis, who said that he only wanted to see me personally to see what sort of person I was, as he wanted some one of gentlemanly appearance, and would I call back at 11.30 sharp, as the agreement was hardly ready—I did so, and saw Garland, who produced this agreement (Dated 9th August, for 2l. a week, payable monthly, and 25l. deposit; signed M. Jervis)—I paid the 25l. and received this promissory note for 25l., payable on the termination of the agreement (Signed E. Kent, A. Wilson Morley Jervis)—I parted with my money on the faith of it being a genuine society—on 22nd August I received this letter (Postponing the commencement of the witness's duties till Mr. Jervis returned from the country, but stating that his salary would commence from the date of the engagement)—on the Monday after this I called at the office and saw Garland; I asked him if he had discharged his present collector—he said "No"—I asked him if there was only one collector in his place when he was discharged—he said that there was only one appointed for it—I showed him the letter but did not give it to him; he wanted it very badly, and said that it was a mistake—on 31st August I received this letter (From Jervis, at Ipswich, expressing regret that some little unpleasantness had occurred in his absence, and willingness to cancel the agreement if wished, offering to see him on Thursday between 3 and 4 'clock)—I took no notice of that, because we were applying for a warrant, and he was arrested on the Monday morning—I received no money back, and no salary.

Cross-examined byMR. HOPKINS. I did not apply for it, it was not much use—there is no Sunday delivery of letters at my house—the agreement was between me and Garland—I did not see Jervis till the day I paid the money—I applied to have my agreement cancelled when I received it from Mr. Barlow—that was on the Friday evening, and they were arrested on the Monday morning—I did not see Byce. before the Monday—I went with Barlow to Mr. Hare's office, and chief detective Mc Williams introduced me—I parted with my money on the faith that it was a genuine Society.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. Garland said nothing about the position of the Society—he did not represent to me that he was secretary—I did not know what he was—he did not sign the agreement, but he filled in the date in my presence and handed it to me—he did not tell me he had only one collector for each district—I was not aware that the Society

intended to establish branches—I understood Garland to say that he had only one collector altogether.

Thursday, November 20th.

JOSEPH BARLOW . I reside at Bennett Road, West Croydon—in August last, in consequence of an advertisement in the Daily Chronicle, I made an application for an appointment as collector—it was sent to an address in Fleet Street, I forget the number, and I received this letter in reply, dated August 4th, 1884, requesting me to call there "to-morrow, Tuesday, at half-past 1, to see Mr. Garland"—I called at the time mentioned, and saw Mr. Garland; he told me my letter would be put before the committee that day, and I should be very likely to obtain the situation—he told me it was a very busy Society, a great deal of business to do; being Bank Holiday, they could not afford to take it, they were so busy—on 6th August I received this letter (This stated that the witness's application had been favourably received by the committee, and requested him to call on Friday at 1 o'clock, to sign the agreement)—I called on the Friday, and saw Garland and Jervis—Jervis told me that I had received the appointment, and that the agreement would be ready later in the afternoon, if I would call for it—I did so, but the promissory note was not drawn up—he told me my duties would be very light; I should have to collect accounts; that it was a very good berth, and I ought to get on, if I did not it was my own fault—I called again on the Saturday following, I think—I saw Garland; he produced the agreement and I signed it and paid him 20l., and this copy was handed to me (This was dated 9th August, 1882, salary 2l. 10s. a week, to be paid monthly, the 20l. deposit to be paid as a security, for which a promissory note for 20l., signed by Kent, Jervis, and A. Wilson to be given for repayment)—I parted with my money on the representations made to me by Garland as to the stability of the Society and the good berth it was—I was to commence duties on the 25th—on the 22nd I received this letter (This was addressed to Mr. Rossetas, stating that it would be more convenient to commence duties on September 8th, Mr. Jervis being at the seaside, and would not return till then; that my salary would commence from the 25th)—Mr. Rossetas called on me on account of his receiving my letter, he thought there was something wrong—I called at the office on the Monday—I could not see Mr. Garland—I saw a man named Dean there—he said Mr. Garland was out attending at the Law Courts—I tried to see him on several occasions after that, but could not—I have received no portion of my deposit back—I received a letter while the prisoners were in gaol from Jervis.

Cross-examined byMR. HOPKINS. I am a butcher at present—the promissory note was given to me voluntarily; they said it was in return for the money; that was after I had had the conversation with Garland—nothing was said to me then about a branch office; I had seen no card or prospectus at that time—I parted with my money on the representation I got from Mr. Garland; he said the Society was doing a large business and they were overpressed, and would be glad when I commenced—I wanted the situation, and as long as I got it it did not matter to me whether it was a Society or a firm—I did not make any inquiries about the committee of the Society until it was too late—I got the letter addressed to Mr. Bossetas on a Saturday morning—I went to the office on the Monday following, and I went three or four times during the week as they were arrested on the following Monday—I saw Mr. Dean on each occasion, nobody else—I have made inquiries about the stability of the

Society from a gentleman in the City I happened to know, I don't wish to mention his name, and he told me to go to the police—I never saw any circulars containing the names of the committee—I never saw this circular (produced)—I never inquired the names of the committee—from the inquiries I made I believed the society was not a genuine one—I first saw Mr. Hare about the matter on the Monday afternoon; I believe I was introduced to him by Mr. Mc William, an Inspector of Police; he said the best thing I could do was to see a solicitor, and I went to Mr. Hare—he might have mentioned Mr. Hare's name; I did not know him before—I saw the office of the society; it looked very respectable; they did not seem to be doing much work.

Cross-examined byMR. DOLBEY. When I first went to the office I saw Mr. Garland and had a conversation with him; he did not tell me what position in the Society he was; I took him to be the secretary—the letter of the 6th August is signed "Morley Jervis"—I thought he was manager at that time—the agreement is made between Morley Jervis, secretary of the Defence Society, and signed "Morley Jervis," and the receipt was signed by him—at that time I did not think Garland was secretary—Garland did not sign the promissory note.

Cross-examined by Jervis. I regarded the committee as having appointed me.

Cross-examined byMR. KEITH FRITH. I only saw Kent once; he was in a room next to Mr. Jervis—he did not seem to be taking any active part—I can't say whether Garland was in or not at that time—I was in there on different occasions, an hour at a time perhaps—I never had any conversation with Kent.

JOHN MARSHALL . I live at Exeter now—in the early part of the year I was residing in London—I entered into the service of the Defence Society in June last—I saw an advertisement in the paper, and wrote and received a reply; I have not the letter here—I afterwards called at the office and saw Jervis, and asked him about the place and when I should commence duties—I think this was about the 10th of June—he told me my duties would be light—I called again and saw Jervis; Dean was in the office—an agreement was drawn up then; I signed one part, and the other part was given to me; I have the agreement with me—I paid 20l. deposit—I parted with my money because I thought it was a genuine affair—I commenced on 30th June; when I went to the office Mr. Jervis and Mr. Dean were there—I remained at the office about two months—Garland and Kent were there during that time; Garland was assistant-secretary or something like that, and Kent was a kind of clerk—I was paid every week—I kept a report book—I did not see any one else there besides Garland, Jervis, Kent, and Dean—there was no branch office that I know of; there was going to be one, because I was sent on that duty—I saw some printed circulars at the office; I never distributed any; they were different colours—I have seen this one (yellow) (produced), and I have seen the white one; I think I have not seen this card (produced)—it says they had formed 178 branches—it is not true that I embezzled 100l. while I was there—it is not true that I was dismissed on account of irregularities in my accounts, nor that I was re-engaged; I saw an advertisement, and I applied to Mr. Jervis about it, and he said he would recommend me—I was not under notice to quit and then re-employed by the committee—I never

saw any committee meeting held—I was very seldom in the office; I was always away on duty somewhere or other—I was not asked to attend before a committee—one day I was in the office I heard some people inside, and I was told it was a committee, but whether it was I can't say; it was not my place to go in—I saw people come to the office, what about I don't know—I was not aware they were advertising for a collector—on the morning of their arrest I was sent on a round to Hoxton, and when I came back the police were there—I did not see Jervis at the office on 31st August—I have received some part of my deposit back—Mr. Cannon gave me some; he is solicitor for Jervis, but not at the time I think—I never saw him at the office—I don't know Wilson, and I have not seen Mr. Elliott at the office, but I saw him afterwards—I received my salary up to the following Saturday as they were arrested on the Monday—I received 5l. just after Jervis was arrested I think—I have not received any further sum.

Cross-examined byMR. HOPKINS. I had no reason to complain—I never asked for the repayment of my deposit—I was kept at work—there was a pressure of work sometimes—this (produced) is my report book of all Society work done—this note, "Went to Mr. Lynch for papers and received them from Mr. Rogers," that was a case which was on, and I went for brief and other things for Mr. Lynch the Counsel—there was a case belonging to the Society, of Greenaway, another of Spearman, another Biley v. Slater, another, and Stokes and Murray—all these cases were intended to be carried on by the Society—I made inquiries concerning them—I have seen the yellow prospectus, that states further the objects of the Society—the work that I did was suitable for this object—I had no reason to doubt that the society was a bond fide one—I was sent to make inquiries for offices—I heard that a collector before me had embezzled money—I was not there when the police seized the papers—I have lost a good situation by this arrest—I had no reason to complain the whole of the two months.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. I went to the office in June—I first saw Garland there somewhere about July, I could not say the date—he was there writing one afternoon when I came in—I said in my deposition that he came about 28th July, about a month after I went there—I never saw him there in June—I do not know when Garland was, engaged—Mr. Jervis said he was acting as clerk there—Dean was employed there before Garland came—my duties were mostly out of the office.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. I remember whilst in this Society a case named Hugden coming before it—a summons was obtained at the instance of the Society on his behalf at Brentford—he came to the Society complaining that he had been swindled out of 300l. or 400l. in the purchase of a public-house, and a summons was obtained at Brentford against three persons for obtaining money by false pretences, and the Society instructed Counsel to appear—there were three attendances—I have seen Kent's papers in Jervis's hands—Kent told me that he had placed his papers in Jervis's hands for the purpose of having them wound up—Kent had half a dozen actions in the Courts of Justice, and Jervis and Fulcher, a solicitor, were acting for him in these matters—Kent did not come regularly to the office—when he was there he acted under Jervis's directions; he seemed as if he was a clerk—I did not see a book at the police-court in which entries were made of cases

undertaken by the Society; there was such a book, this is it (produced—on 14th July there are eight entries in reference to cases that the Society had in hand—this one on 24th July, Kent v. Thompson, was one of Kent's actions, and I have an entry of an interview with some persons about it—I have seen people call at the office on business matters, and they saw Jervis—I dare say there were more than four cases in a week in which the Society was acting for people—I was sent on a great many inquiries—I was engaged sometimes till late at night serving subpoenas, and I complained of being kept out so late and having so much to do—I frequently saw Kent under the influence of liquor, but I think he knew what he was about.

Re-examined. My duties were making inquiries concerning cases—I was sent to this Court once to search the Calendar to ascertain if Mr. Greenaway had been convicted here—I was sent to Mr. Goode, the printer, concerning the printing of these circulars—I was sent to Mr. Caswall by Mr. Kent; that was about Mr. Kent's private matters—I recollect the Society doing some business for a Mrs. Pigeley—I heard her complain at the Worship Street Police-court that the Society had got her money and had not carried out her business—I know a Mr. Brookman; the Society took charge of a case of his; I did not hear him complain that I know of—the writing in this letter-book looks like Jervis's writing, I cannot swear to it—the signature is "Morley Jervis"—I cannot say whose writing this is on this document—I have never taken any notice of Garland's writing—I have seen the clerks using letter-books in the office—there was a copying press used by the clerk Dean—I have been to see Jervis in the gaol while this case has been proceeding—in the matters in which I have been engaged Jervis did not conduct the cases, Solicitor and Counsel always conducted them—Mr. Fulcher was the solicitor—I was sometimes sent to Mr. Lynch's chambers—I was with Jervis—I cannot say whether Jervis ever put his own name on papers that were sent to Counsel, I don't know whether he did or no—the briefs, I think, were prepared in the office—I believe Mr. Fulcher used to come and sign the outside sheet himself—I could not say what he did, he has generally gone inside with Jervis.

ByMR. HOPKINS. The papers were Mr. Fulcher's papers—his office was in Charles Square, not in the same house as the Society—I do not know whether he had an office there; his name was on the door—I visited Mr. Jervis in the House of Detention out of my respect and sympathy for him; I am not ashamed of having been.

THOMAS CHRISTOPHER HUNGERFORD . I live at 7, Clement's Inn Passage, Lincoln's Inn Fields—I have been in the army—I am now out of employment—on 15th August I saw this advertisement in the Daily Telegraph, and communicated with "Treasurer, Postal Department of the Telegraph office"—I received in reply this letter from Garland asking me to call between three and four next day to see him, I did so and saw him, he spoke of the inducement held out in the advertisement, that it was 30s. a week, and the probability of my wife keeping the office—I asked why they required a collector, he said the man they had was about to leave to get abetter post—he showed me letters he had received from other parties—he said there was some large business going on in the way of collecting moneys, and a certain amount of trust would be put in me in collecting them—on the same evening I received this letter telling me to call on

Friday morning and sign the agreement, I did call and saw Garland—an agreement was produced, he read it over to me, but as I had not the money with me it was not signed till the following day, the 23rd, when I paid the money, 20l.—I parted with it from the prospect referred to in the advertisement, and also my wife keeping the offices—I never got the situation—I was to take the post on 1st September, and about three minutes after I was there the place was besieged by detectives—I never had any money back, or any interest (The agreement stated that the 20l. would be paid back with 5 per cent, interest)—Garland signed one agreement and I the other.

Cross-examined byMR. DOLBEY. The defendants were arrested on the 1st September, about five minutes after I got to the office—the police searched the premises with Mr. Hare, the Solicitor, and the place was then closed—when I first saw Garland he told me my duties were to be those of a collector, and to make myself generally useful; he did not tell me there were other collectors, he merely spoke of the one they had at the time—I did not know that other collectors had been appointed, if I had I should not have gone in for it—I was not told anything about districts or branches.

FREDERICK PEEK . I am a carpenter and joiner, of 38, Kilburn Park—in consequence of seeing an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph I wrote a letter to Morley Jervis, manager, and got this reply: "Please call here to-morrow at 11.30, and ask to see Mr. Kent"—I did call and saw Jervis and Kent, I had a conversation with both—Jervis asked me if I was Mr. Peek—I said I was—I was passed into another room and there I had a conversation with Kent, he told me the Society had been in existence for twelve months—I said I had not seen it advertised in the papers—he said it had been carried on privately—I asked if it was a genuine affair—he said, "Yes"—I had the same conversation with Jervis after he passed me into the next room—I believe that was all that passed except that he would let me know if I was successful—Jervis said they had over 3,000 applications, and over six were admitted to the committee, and I was the first of them, and he would let me know by to-night's post or next morning—I made an appointment to meet him a day or two after—on the same evening, I received this letter by the last post (This letter was signed Morley Jervis, secretary, and stated that the committee had decided to offer witness the situation, and enclosed copy agreement fixing the security at 30l., salary 2l. a week, payable monthly)—both Jervis and Kent told me that I was to deposit 30l.—I paid 18l. on account, this is the receipt—I parted with my money because I thought it was a genuine affair; I was in want of a situation, and thought it was a very good chance—when there I saw no sign of a committee—on 4th of August I received this letter, signed "Morley Jervis," saying," I regret to say we have decided to cancel your agreement, a cheque will be forwarded to you for 18l."—I never received my 18l., not a farthing—I communicated with them in consequence of that letter, and on August 9th I received this: "The question had better stand over till I return from my holiday on 1st September. Morley Jervis, secretary." I had this letter afterwards on 29th August (This was signed p. p. Morley Jervis, and stated that they had arranged to continue the present collector, and that a cheque for the 18l. would be sent on 13th September).

Cross-examined byMR. DOLBEY. I was not a party to cancelling the agreement

—at the time I made the application, Jervis told me he was the secretary—I had no reason to doubt his word—I lost my time as well as the 18l., and was put to great expense as well.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. I never saw Garland.

HENRY JAMES ABBERFILED . At the time in question I was living at 6, Jackson's Road, Holloway, and was out of employment—in July I heard of an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph, and called at the office of the Defence Society, and saw Jervis—I applied for the place of messenger—Jervis said the place was vacant, and that I should be the very person he thought was suited for it, that he had several other applications, but before he could decide he would have it put before the committee—he said I should have to go to different places to inquire into cases which had been found out, and also to collect debts and to go out for any general information that would be required by the Society—he did not say any thing about the Society itself—I received this letter from Jervis on the Saturday or Monday as I interviewed him on the Friday. (Read: "Subject to your references, which I presume will be satisfactory, I have the pleasure to offer you the situation. I enclose copy of agreement. Call and sign.") The agreement was enclosed—I called on the Monday morning, and saw Jervis in the office with another clerk, who I afterwards ascertained was Dean—Jervis showed me work that he was doing, and said that was the kind of thing I should have to do—I made a deposit of 25l.—I did that because he represented the situation as being a very light one, and the salary being good—I signed one part of the agreement and Jervis the other, and gave it to me (This was similar to the others)—on August 9th I received this letter (Postponing the commencement of his duties till Mr. Jervis's return from his holiday, the salary should commence on Monday next, call on Monday)—I did call, and I saw Garland—he told me that Mr. Jervis was then at one of the Channel Islands for his holiday, and as he did not like a fresh hand to come into the office under his care, he would rather I should wait till Mr. Jervis returned; that he had communicated with him—on August 29th I received this letter, signed by Jervis and Garland (Stating that the present collector would be continued and the witness's services would be dispensed with, and that a cheque for the 25l. and salary would be sent)—I saw none of the prisoners after that—I have not received any portion of my deposit back, or any salary—they did not at any time give me any printed document.

Cross-examined byMR. DOLBEY. I was introduced to the Company by a third person named Bray—he told me it was a good and bond fide concern—I had no reason to doubt that at the time—I have since—I was to call on the 13th September for my 25l. and a month's wages—I know the prisoners were arrested on 1st September—a friend of mine, a Mr. Palmer, was about to take an engagement with the Company, but he found out what the people were like, and did not.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. Up to the time I signed the agreement I had not seen Garland—it was nothing that he said to me that induced me to part with my money.

FRANK PELLATT SUDBURY . I am a solicitor practising at Chelmsford—in May last I came into communication with Jervis for the purpose of opening an office in town, and on 26th May, 1884, I entered into this agreement (This was between Jervis and witness, witnessed by Dean, for three furnished rooms at 64, Finsbury Pavement, for the sum of 50l., for which a receipt

was given)—I took possession for about three weeks—that was where the business was earned on—I did some business there—I did not feel satisfied and left—I did not take the furniture away with me—I made an arrangement with Jervis to pay me the money back again; the agreement was not absolutely cancelled—I have not got my money back—this (produced) is the cheque I paid—the agreement was on behalf of the defence Society and Jervis—he told me he was the secretary to the Society—the only person in the office was Jervis, who had one room to carry on the business of the Society, and I had the other two—the other was Dean, the clerk, who was my clerk—I paid him 1l. a week salary while I was there—I did not see Garland there—I saw Kent there—I did some business for him—I saw no committee meeting; I was not constantly in attendance; as a rule from half-past ten till half-past two, except on Friday; I was not there—I knew nothing of people calling at the office.

Cross-examined byMR. DOLBEY. The agreement was not actually cancelled; it was put an and to—I received promissory notes for the amount of the debt, on the understanding that I should not give up my lien on the premises till those notes were met.

Cross-examined byMR. MOMORREN. That took place on 26th May, the day the agreement was signed—I never saw Garland there at all that I know of—I don't remember seeing him till I saw him in the dock the other day—I don't know whether the Defence Society itself had business when I went there—I know that Jervis introduced legal business to me while I was there which I conducted—I was not there after the first week in June.

JOHN MOSSEL . I am manager of the Finsbury branch of the London and South-Western Bank—Jervis had an account there in the name of Charles William Jervis—I have the ledger account here from the beginning of July, 1883—the Defence Society had no account with us, nor had W. H. Richardson as treasurer, or the managing committee, or David Blelloch, the president, or Morley Jervis—in the early part of C. W. Jervis's account there seems to have been an average balance of 50l.—on 31st March, 1884, it was 6s. 1d. in his favour; on 29th May, 35l. Was paid in; on 30th May, 50l. by a country cheque; then the balance varied from time to time, and on 3rd August it was reduced to 17s. 6d.

Cross-examined byMR. DOLBEY. His turnover was 276l. for three months—from September, 1883, to December it was 827l.—it was not so much as 2,000l. or 3,000l. a year—we always have a reference when accounts are opened—this account was opened before I had the management.

WILLIAM HILL RICHARDSON , M.R.O.S., of Millman Street. I first became acquainted with the Defence Society, as a society, about June last—Mr. Jervis introduced the matter to me—I had known him about two years—after a little conversation I consented to have my name down as treasurer pro tem, until the officers were appointed—circulars were printed with my name upon them—I had seen Mr. Blelloch, the president, before, but none of the general committee named—I did not know Mr. George Elliott, or Mr. Blewett, or Mr. Kent, or Mr. Case—I did not understand that there was an account at the South-Western Bank—not a farthing was paid to me as treasurer, nor any banking account kept in my name as treasurer—I never attended any committee meeting at the Society's office—beyond having my name on the circular as treasurer there

was no other connection between myself and the Society—I was not aware that they were advertising for and appointing collectors—I was informed by Jervis that the objects of the Society were those stated in the circular—I never had any contact with Garland; I may have seen him.

Cross-examined byMR. DOLBEY. I did not know that the Society contemplated forming branches all over the metropolis—I always considered Jervis a most respectable man and perfectly straightforward and upright, or I should not have consented to my name being put there.

Cross-examined by Jervis. You asked me to become treasurer protem. until you could get one more publicly known—I never received any donations or subscriptions—I am not aware whether any were received—I have been at the office several times—I have always seen you hard at work there—I had no reason to suppose it was not a bond fide Society.

Re-examined. I was not aware that large sums were being received as deposits; I knew nothing at all about it—I bad never acted as treasurer to anything before.

GEORGE ELLOITT . I am a surveyor, of 30, Finsbury Circus—I know Jervis—I gave no authority for my name to. appear as one of the managing committee of the Defence Society—I had seen a prospectus with my name in it in the early part of the present year, in a white circular which I have with me—I appear here with W. H. Gannon and Jervis as on the managing committee—I have never attended any committee meeting—I heard from Jervis that he was taking on collectors latterly—I did not know Mr. Blewitt, of Tottenham, till after these proceedings—I have seen Mr. Wilson at the office when I have been there on business—I know Mr. Case; I knew him many years ago in Queen Victoria Street—I have not known him in connection with this Society; his name was not on the prospectus sent to me.

Cross-examined by Jervis. You sent me a proof prospectus like the one I have produced—I don't remember any letter—I altered the prospectus and sent you an altered copy; you asked me do so—I suggested that the word "Legal" should be added to the title of the Defence Society—I cannot tell how many times I have been to the office; I should say not 100 times; I would not swear I have not—I have had occasion to see you on several matters of business outside this Society—if approval of the prospectus means consent to my name appearing, such would be the case, but I did not give you any direct authority—I know Mr. Blelloch—I believe he never called on me on the subject of this Society—you told me the Society was fast progressing, and instructed me to look after larger premises—I signed one of the promissory notes at your suggestion, as you were going to pay somebody 50l.—I heard a report that everybody connected with the Society was going to be arrested on a warrant—I was not particularly frightened at that—it rather alarmed me, certainly, at hearing so—I have known you five or six years—you have carried some matters through for me, and always very satisfactorily, also for clients of mine that I have introduced to you—I have no reason to complain of you—I believe the Society would have been a grand success if carried out properly—I always knew you as a solicitor's managing clerk and accountant—I believe you expended a large sum in trying to float this Society—you told me you had expended all your time and money on it—I certainly believed it would have been a good thing.

name, nothing more—I did not know his capacity at the office; of course it was under-secretary or clerk; bookkeeper I thought.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. The defence Society was conducting business for me—Jervis had matters in hand for me—I heard they were conducting business matters for Kent—I did not know it at the time—I found Jervis to act straightforwardly in everything I gave him, and introduced clients of mine to him—I felt sure he would meet his engagements.

By Jervis. The promissory note became due in September, after your arrest—I have been advised by my solicitor not to pay it during these proceedings—we were ready, so was Mr. Blewitt, to meet it at the time.

Re-examined. I knew it was given to accommodate Mr. Jervis—that was the only one I signed or heard of.

WILLIAM HANDLE CANNON . I am a solicitor, of the Wool Exchange—I know Jervis very well—I never saw the other defendants before—my name appears on the circulars of the Defence Society as one of the managing committee—I was written to about it—I was not aware that my name was on the circular at the time, but I presume having known Jervis 20 years, and as he informed me subsequently that it was a printer's proof, and my name had only been placed there until such time as he got other names, I did not object to it particularly—I never attended a meeting of the committee—I did not know any other gentlemen whose names are mentioned—I was not aware they were engaging collectors and clerks in the way that has been described—I thought the affair was a very beneficial thing, and I do so now—this was three, four, or five months ago—I understood that the document was never circulated except as a printer's proof—I have been acting for Jervis in this case for the last few days.

Cross-examined by Jervis. You sent me a letter containing reports of the cases in which you had been concerned—I intended to go into the matter with you subsequently—I believe you afterwards showed me a settled form of prospectus with my name omitted—you said it was omitted because I had not given you a written authority—I believed that the engagements you entered into you would fulfil faithfully—I had business transactions in which you were on the opposite side—I think you have done your duty as a solicitor's clerk.

ALFRED MASON . I am manager of the Moorgate and Broad Street Buildings, who own the premises, 63, Queen Victoria Street—we had a Mr. Alfred Wilson as tenant of those premises—he is not the tenant now; I had a writ of ejection against him—I have not seen anything of him since May or June last; he went away leaving the rent unpaid—there was no other Wilson a tenant of ours—there were one or two who had the Christian name of Wilson, but not the surname.

W. H. SCOTT. I am a printer, of 3, Copthall Court—I did not print any circulars for the Defence Society—my name appears on the general committee—I believe that was not with my authority, I don't remember giving any authority—I have had no notice of meeting, I don't never attended—I was a collector for the society—I was appointed between June and September last year—I did not make any deposit—my appointment was by letter from Mr. Jervis—two or three forms were

sent to me with the letter—these produced are some of them—I never took it tip.

Cross-examined by Jervis. I remember your sending me a proof of a new prospectus this year—I don't remember receiving one like this (The white one)—I don't remember receiving a letter asking my permission to put my name on the circular, and my replying that I had much pleasure in consenting—I have seen some of the yellow circulars, they came by post; I don't know who sent them—I saw my name on those; I objected to it by post.

WILLIAM JONATHAN GOODE . I am a printer at 23, St. John's Lane, Clerkenwell—I printed certain prospectuses of all colours for the Defence Society—Jervis gave me the order—I printed 1,000 I think of these on 14th August, 1884—I printed the white ones on 3rd July; I did not lithograph the circular letter on the back of it—I have been paid a portion of my account—I commenced printing for them on 2nd July—there were a lot of little jobs.

Cross-examined by Jervis. A lot of alterations were made in the proofs—we printed 200 first, then 200, 250, 200 again on 3rd July, and I think the last was 1,000 of the yellow one—I called at your office; you told me your object was to send them round and get as many good names as possible for a settled circular, and then you gave me instructions to print 1,000 of what you termed the settled circular, the yellow one—I sent in my first account on 15th or 16th July for 12l. 2s.—I asked for money on account, and had 10l. within twenty days—I saw nothing to complain about the little time I was backwards and forwards—my second account has never been delivered.

JOHN H. B. DAVIS . I am a printer at 23, St. Mary Axe—we did several jobs for the Defence Society—I took the orders from Jervis in October and November, 1883—we printed none of these—our account was about 20l. odd—bills were given by Mr. Jervis, I believe, and dishonoured.

Cross-examined by Jervis. We paid them away, and they were sued for in Court—we did not sue—I cannot say if they have been met; we had to give a cheque for one of them.

JOSEPH BROWN . I am a licensed valuer and money-lender—on 9th July I advanced Jervis 60l. on this bill of sale on furniture.

Cross-examined by Jervis. This is the original bill of sale; it was registered—the money was paid to me on the 24th—you have had several transactions with me; I have lent you money since, and when you were taken some money I had lent you on a bill of sale was found on you—your business has always been satisfactory—I have known you two or three years.

Re-examined. I don't know if Jervis was employed by Mr. Swain, a solicitor—he was introduced to me by a Mr. Wilson.

CHARLES COOK . I am in the employ of the Daily Telegraph, and I produce the manuscript of some advertisements; the date does not appear on them; there were three separate insertions; it came from the Defence Society.

WILLIAM CARTWRIGHT . I am cashier in the employment of the Daily Chronicle—I produce the manuscript of an advertisement in that paper of 22nd July and 1st August—I only received one of them.

the manuscript of an advertisement of 21st July—I cannot tell by whom it was inserted.

FRANK BRAIARS (Police Sergeant G). I went to the office some time after Maroney had arrested the prisoners and inspected it—I found a great number of documents there—this (The pink prospectus) was one of them—this bundle contains papers I found there; I went through them—I found this on the table in Jervis's office (This was the list of men employed, the deposits received, and the dates to which they were put off); all the papers that were there I brought away—I found books there—Inspector Peel went through the letter books—I saw a great number of white prospectuses—this is one of them—I did not notice this lithographed on the back (This was headed: "64, Finsbury Pavement, July 16th, 1884. With respect to your answer to our advertisement, addressed to the secretary, I beg you will fill up the enclosed and return it to me, when the matter will have due attention. Yours faithfully, Morley Jervis, Secretary.") There were some hundreds of them on the top of the safe—I found this agreement with Disher at the office.

Cross-examined by Jervis. I saw several hundreds it may be of those yellow prospectuses there; there were a lot in packets—there might be 800—I think there were more yellow than white—there was a quantity of letters on the middle table—I took none away; I handed all I found over to the solicitor for the prosecution—I had no search warrant—I took no list of the papers I handed over—among the papers I found law papers of actions going on—I locked the office up and kept it locked up until I went and found a man in for an execution for rent, 201.—I found him there three or four days after you were committed—I did not know you had given the landlord authority to go in for rent—your solicitor did not apply to me for permission to go in and search for papers—I kept the premises locked up for the safe custody of the papers there—we only took what we had need of—I did not know the man went in by your authority.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. I did not go over the law papers on the table, and did not see some marked "Kent" among them—Mr. Hugden applied at the police-court for his papers in an action at Hertford.

STEPHEN MARONEY (Police Sergeant G). I held a warrant for the prisoners' apprehension, and apprehended Garland and Kent at the office, Finsbury Pavement, on 1st September—I read the warrant to them—Garland made no reply—Kent said, "I know nothing about it, I am only here to answer questions"—I handed some documents to Mr. Hare, the solicitor—I found 25l. in bank-notes in the safe addressed "For Byce."

Cross-examined by Jervis. I did not make a list of the documents I handed over; there was a quantity—policemen do make a list if they have sole charge of them—Mr. Hare, the solicitor, took charge of them—I have heard you say that a great number of your papers were missing, and that you could not conduct your case properly.

ROBERT BOVERY (Police Sergeant). I went with the last witness to 64, Finsbury Pavement on 1st September—Garland and Kent were arrested—I found this letter at the office in the fireplace (This was dated Sunday evening, addressed to Kent, asking him to be at the office by 9 to-morrow, and to meet the writer at 11 Peel's Coffee-house, Fetter Lane,

and stating that he could tell Garland and Kent that he was at Ipswich till Monday, but that to everybody else he was away till Friday)—I went to Feel's Coffee-house with Byce—we there found Jervis, and arrested him on a warrant—in Byce's presence he said, "You would have had your money if you had waited, I will send it on to the office; I hope you are not going to be spiteful, I will pay you now, if you charge me you will ruin me"—he was taken to the station—I searched him and found on him six 10l. notes, four 5l. notes, 3l. in gold, 2s. 6d. in silver, 6 1/2 d. in bronze, a gold watch and metal chain—3s. was taken to pay his cab fare to the station, and 25l. has been given up for the purposes of his defence.

Cross-examined by Jervis. Maroney found Some money at the office, I did not—I found 108l. on you—I showed you the warrant, I did not read it to you—you did not, to my recollection, say "There is no occasion for this"—I wrote down your statement the same night.

WILLIAM PEEL (Police Inspector G). I have had the conduct of this prosecution—I have seen the books taken from the Society's office—I have examined the letter-book, and find that in addition to the cases which have been brought before the Court there are letters to 28 different persons, offering them the appointment and asking for a security and an interview—between 15th July and 20th August there are 33 cases, I think—in addition there are seven letters requesting applicants to call, altogether 40 different letters respecting appointments—I have collected the total amounts of deposits, I think they are brought out in a total in one of those slips, amounting altogether to 1,475l., and the wages to be paid weekly were about 118l. a week—I base my calculation on a security of 25l. from each case, it would amount to that—Briars found all the documents; I have seen them (These letters were in reply to the advertisement and offered security, the amounts in each ease being underscored in red and blue pencil).

Cross-examined by Jervis. I found no letter asking for money, but asking for an interview—a situation is offered them—the letters state that the applicant has got the situation, and the condition of taking it is the deposit—I had nothing to do with finding the papers. (Briars was here recalled; he stated that there were some of the pink prospectuses about the tradesmen's department of the Defence Society it established 1880, subscription 10s. 6d. a year.) I locked the office up, and have the keys now—I had no search warrant—the office was locked up for some weeks—I went there and was surprised to find some person there—the landlord applied to me for the key—your solicitor made no application to go in to look over your papers—I kept them locked up because there was no person there to take charge of the place, it might have defeated the ends of justice to allow any person to go in there—I had no written authority to keep them locked up—the key was asked for on one or two occasions—you complained at the police-court of not being able to get your papers, and I attended at the House of Detention to ask what papers you wanted, and which were sent to the House of Detention specially—I do not remember your solicitor asking—I should not allow any one to go in without the solicitor for the prosecution seeing them first.

Jervis's Statement before the Magistrate: "I repudiate entirely any fraud, false pretences, or conspiracy. This prosecution is simply the spite of one man named Byce, who, with his solicitor, threatened to crush us. The

society is a bond fide, properly constituted society, and I shall at the trial be able to prove it fully. My defence I reserve."Kent says: "I have been in business in the City for myself for nine years. I placed several matters in the hands of Mr. Jervis nine months ago, and I called at his office occasionally to see how matters were going on. After I had interviewed three of the applicants according to his wish, and seeing advertisements still appearing, I requested an interview." Garland says: "I reserve my defence."

Witnesses for the Defence.

WALTER HUGDEN (Examined by Jervis). I was quartermaster-sergeant in the Royal Artillery—I bought a business for 600l. on misrepresentations, and thought I could obtain my money back again, and I came to the Defence Society's office in July to obtain legal aid—I placed it in the Society's hands, had many interviews, you took full particulars, and I believe sent to various parts of the country making inquiries for me—the charge of conspiracy was withdrawn from the Criminal Court, and I got a large sum of money by a settlement while the civil action was pending—the Society took up the case philanthropically; I did not pay a farthing—they were going to recover costs after the case was settled.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. I saw Garland in the office—he seemed always acting in connection with the business of the office—I could not say if he was a clerk.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. Jervis assisted me a great deal.

Cross-examined byMR. MIRAMS. The summons was taken out by the Defence Society, and Jervis appeared to conduct it—Mr. Lynch applied for the summons, instructed by Mr. Fulcher—the prosecution was withdrawn in September, and civil proceedings begun by my solicitor, Mr. Mellows, of Chancery Lane, as I had to employ another solicitor when Jervis was locked up—the Mayor of Hertford quashed the criminal proceedings—it was withdrawn at request of Counsel—the arrangement was that the Society should recover their costs after the action—Mr. Mellows's costs have been paid by somebody.

Re-examined. The whole of the work was done by the Society, I believe.

JAMES BRIGGS (Examined byMR. HOPKINS). I am a solicitor, of Finsbury Circus—I professionally represented Gurner under the instructions of the Defence Society against the Metropolitan Tramways Company's treatment of their servants—I appeared for the case—my fee was paid—I knew there were a great many cases of the same sort in the hands of Jervis—I have advised him in other cases; the Society's work—I have known him for some time—he was managing clerk for a good many years to a very large firm of solicitors, Messrs. Carr and Bannister—he was Chancery and Bankruptcy manager—as far as I had any connection with Jervis in reference to these cases I am quite sure that this was a bond fide society—I knew nothing of the Society except Jervis—I knew he was working the Society up—he has borrowed money from me, and always repaid me—I have no reason to complain of his treatment of me.

Cross-examined byMR. MIRAMS. The Tramways Company's case was on 7th August—I was paid one guinea—many cases arose after it—I believe the case was conducted free of charge—I was aware Jervis was in Mr. Swain's employment—I do not know under what circumstances he left—I saw a charge against him referred to in the newspapers, and I

called and asked for an explanation—he said the statement was entirely untrue—he was tried and acquitted of that charge; I believe it was groundless—I was satisfied with the explanations and with the proceedings.

Re-examined. I have not considered the reasonableness of the Society—I don't think I have seen a prospectus.

DAVID BLELLOCH . I am a solicitor, of 40, Green Street, Finchley—I was invited to become president of the Defence Society about July last—I did not give direct consent—a prospectus was to be sent me, and I was to make inquiries about it—I suggested alterations in it—I had interviews with Jervis—I also saw Mr. Elliott, a member of the committee—Jervis consulted me on a great many cases submitted to him—I think the notion of the Society was a very good one, if carried out properly—I was instructed to appear professionally at Hammersmith on two occasions on behalf of the Society—one was Ayckbourne the omnibus conductor's case, which was taken up from public motives, I understood, from Jervis—three guineas, my fee, was paid—Ayckbourne paid nothing—Jervis said he was going to spend a good deal of money in extending the Society—I knew Dr. Richardson, Mr. Blewitt, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Elliott, and Mr. Wilson, the members of the committee—I never had any doubt about the genuine bond fides of the Society.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH I have only known Kent from seeing him in the office, he appeared a sort of messenger, answering the bell and showing people in—I think he said something about having put his pecuniary affairs in the hands of Jervis—I think Kent was rather beery.

Cross-examined byMR. MIRAMS. I only saw two circulars I did not think I should have professional business in connection with the Society—I have not seen Dr. Richardson in connection with the Society—I never attended a committee meeting—I saw a clerk named Dean in the outer office—Kent was not inside another room when I saw him—I have been shown advertisements since—I did not know they were offering to engage clerks by the score, and to pay salaries amounting to 108l. a week out of the Society's funds—I knew none of the general committee on the yellow or white prospectuses—I only knew the acting committee.

WILLIAM BLEWITT . I am a fire assessor of 130, Finsbury Pavement—I have known Jervis for three or four years—he put down my name as a member of the Society's committee on a prospectus about to be drawn up—I indirectly introduced Garland, who was doing work for me at the time, to him, and he was engaged there at a salary—I consented to act on the Society subject to the prospectus—J have not the slightest reason to doubt it was a genuine Society—I should not have belonged to it if I had thought it was not—I paid my subscription up to Christmas last—I knew several tramway cases taken up by them—I attended at Aylesbury for the Society's purpose, and give some assistance in Mr. Hugden's case at Hertford—I have heard he was looking for larger premises to extend the Society's business—I know nothing about the collectors—I saw none of the letters of application—I should say there was no pretence for saying the Society is a sham—there were some very big cases going on—I believed Jervis to be a thorough business, energetic, very clever man—he has always kept his engagements with me.

may say, in these fire claims, and he went to Jervis about July or August, I suppose as a kind of manager or head clerk—he said he received a salary of 2l. a week.

Cross-examinedMR. FRITH. I have known Kent 13 years—I was at one time in partnership with him; that was dissolved—he has been very ill, almost dying, since last November, and while so he has been robbed—he placed his affairs in the hands of the Society, and Fulcher and Jervis were acting for him—Fulcher's name, was up at the Society's office—I have been with Kent there to consult Jervis—Kent was very hard up, I have lent him enough for his railway fare up to London, and he has walked up to town and back again sometimes—for four or five months in the early part of this year I don't think he was perfectly sober for one day—he was a brandy drinker.

Cross-examined byMR. MIRAMS. I have known Elliot and Case since this case—Wilson I never saw—Blelloch acted as solicitor for me before the Society was started—I went down to Aylesbury about a case in which there was a dispute about a marriage settlement—I was not aware Jervis and the others were employing a large number of clerks and collectors—I only signed one promissory note to oblige Jervis; it was as collateral security, he told me, as Mr. Sudbury had bought a business for 50l., and somebody else who was going to buy it was to advance him 50l., for which he gave this note—I afterwards heard that this had been received from Reed as security for a clerkship—I was not aware they were about to employ an under-secretary—I cannot say that it is untrue that Jervis referred the applicants to the committee, and they approved of them, I don't know if the other members did—I was asked to be on the managing committee, I was never asked to attend a committee meeting—I was not aware of the 50l. given as deposit by the under-secretary—Kent went to the Defence Society as a clerk—I have seen him do what Mr. Blelloch described, take in names and so forth, solicitors' clerks do that.

DAVID BLELLOCH (Re-examined byMR. MIRAMS). On 13th September I addressed a confidential letter to Mr. Hare, the solicitor for the prosecution—Jervis was an old clerk of mine, who did me a great deal of harm—I had a practice that utterly collapsed—I defended him at the Mansion House in 1881, and he appeared at the Old Bailey, and was defended by Mr. McIntyre, Q.C.—I employed him again—I spent 600l. in establishing a practice in Coleman Street, and lost it—Jervis, as my managing clerk, received heaps of money from my clients, entrusted to me to recover—there was an application to strike me off the rolls—he had charge of my books while I was laid up; there was a fire which destroyed the books—I believe he got 430l. from the Guardian Company for a fire—I believe his furniture was not worth nearly that—I can't say if it was worth 40l.—on several occasions Jervis had written to me to go to his office and I have been—a proof of the prospectus was submitted to—these notes are in my handwriting (Against the list of the committee was written: "Too many names; are these men 'bus drivers or what? Hon. Secretary, Mr. Morgan Jervis. Is this meant for yourself?")—I do hot think that was sent back to Jervis—I made observations on many of them—I did not know him as Morley, but as William Jervis—I did not like the poetry at the bottom, I thought it was rather too florid.

ByMR. HOPKINS This letter was written two months ago—those were my impressions then; I was rather indignant at my name being

mentioned at the police-court—I adhere to the statement I gave in my examination-in-chief—the prisoner has begun to reimburse certain losses I have had through him—I had money from him recently—I had no reason to doubt the bona fides of the society until now, or I should not have consorted with him.

DIGBY TICKELL . I am an estate agent, and member of the firm of Tickell and Ward, 1, Finsbury Square—I have known Jervis for many years, and have had business transactions with him for the last two yeas—I am a member of the Defence "Society—I have been in the office two or three times for the last twelve months—at the beginning of the year he told me he had an idea of a society of this kind; I thought it a good idea, and would no doubt be successful, and said I would become a member—he said he was going to get several collectors—I sent him an old friend of mine who would have deposited 50l. with him—I certainly approved of the society—I should not think I had any reason to doubt, that Jervis would carry out his engagements as far as he could; he always carried them out with me—he has been laid up I know for a considerable portion of the year, and had to go away two or three times.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. I have known Kent for two or three years—I am his neighbour, his pecuniary affairs are in Jervis's hands—he had an illness and failed in business—he was almost in a destitute condition—he assisted Jervis as messenger and occasional clerk, and got a few shillings from time to time from him—on the Sunday before he was arrested he was at my house to supper with Jervis, and he borrowed a few shillings of him then—he was a little drunk on that occasion—as far as I could say he was wholly dependent on Jervis, and acted for Jervis in all he did, and I was in dairy communication with him.

Cross-examined byMR. MCMORRAN. I know nothing of Garland whatever; I have seen him sitting in the office.

Cross-examined byMR. MIRAMS. The firm of Tickell and Ward dissolved partnership—we were charged with conspiracy to defraud, and dismissed—I made no offer to give evidence for the prosecution—I was made a witness, the charge having been made against me—Mr. Blackwell defended me, instructed by Cooke and Carlyle; Mr. Hopkins appeared for him—I did not go to the Defence Society to defend me—I believe Mr. Ward instructed them—the charge was for defrauding an old lady, and the old lady herself said it was untrue—I know nothing about finding the money for the old lady between us—I am surprised the case has not come on in this Court; I hope it will—on the Sunday night before Hie arrest, 31st August, Kent and Jervis had supper with me—I was not aware Jervis had given out he was at Ipswich—I know nothing of his business matters; the Defence Society was not discussed at supper, Kent was too intoxicated, and I should not think of discussing business matters on Sunday—I and Jervis talked of matters of local interest—we were not together more than an hour—Jervis said nothing about things getting rather warm in the society, or about Byce and his 25l.—I never heard of or saw any of the people who came up before—we never discussed the things—I became associated with the matter early this year, and paid half a guinea in advance—I did not pay that with a view of being defended on a charge of conspiracy, or any other charge—I was acquitted at the trial, and the old lady stated in cross-examination by Mr. Hopkins that I was perfectly innocent.

Re-examined. There was no evidence against me, and the Magistrate refused to commit me—I left the court without a stain on my character, and am bringing an action, and want some of the papers which are at the Defence Society's office—my card of membership, to the best of my recollection, was similar to this, and I had a receipt as well for my subscription. (This card stated, among other things, that members must sign an attendance-book.)

ByMR. MIRAMS. I never signed an attendance-book, nor been asked to—I believe my name was put down by a clerk in the ordinary way.

FREDERICK CHARLES KNIGHT . I am an insurance clerk, and live at 22, Rushhill Road, Wandsworth—I know the Defence Society, and have no reason to doubt its genuineness—I was admitted to membership on December 3,1883, and I have received the greatest benefit from it in legal advice and application made for 150l. of book debts belonging to me—they saved me legal expense—I approved of the Society, and recommended it to several members—I had not the slightest reason to doubt Mr. Jervis would carry out his engagements; I always found him strictly straight-forward—I believe there were about 200 canvassers of the society—I have seen a good many of them, and Jervis once invited me to take the superintendence of them—I was very frequently at the office and saw work going on there; deeds being drawn up, letters written, instructions for different cases written out, and various things—I introduced Worth and Langdon to the office for assistance—Worth was charged under the Debtors Act; he was represented by Mr. Holroyd and Mr. Forrest Fulton, and only had to pay 10s. 6d. for all the assistance he got from the society—the case was dismissed—the debts were due to me for a business I had for seven years until recently—Worth, at my instigation, gave Jervis a further sum for his goodness in the matter—Jervis said about July they intended taking larger premises, were going to engage collectors, and wished me to take superintendence of them and canvassers.

Cross-examined byMR. MIRAMS. I have been one of the general committee since June, and also a canvasser—a canvasser's business was to obtain members—we have a commission of 1s. in the pound on renewals of subscriptions, and 2s. 6d. on new subscriptions of 10s. 6d.—I have not seen Kent in the office very frequently—I don't know which is Garland—I never saw him as secretary—I might have seen him in the office—I have seen Kent and another clerk, I don't know his name, at work in the office—I did not read the deeds they were drawing up—I never saw an agreement for hiring clerks—they were drawing up briefs and proofs of cases—Jervis gave me advice, but Mr. Holroyd did on one occasion—he was in attendance daily, I believe—I don't know Blellock or Fulcher—I only knew Mr. Holroyd as solicitor—they never defended any proceedings for me—my trade was successful—they did not collect any debts for me; they offered to do so, and I said I did not think it would pay the society—they advised me with respect to my mother-in-law—they helped me to recover the amount of her maintenance—I don't think I collected my commission, because I did not want it; I left it to the society—there is a difference of account between us now—I did not see the circular with a lithograph on the back offering the appointment of manager—I was not aware they were offering to engage collectors by the score and taking deposits from people—I knew they were engaging collectors—I still

think Jervis is a highly respectable man apart from that—he may have intended returning tne deposits—I was not aware, as a member of the committee, of the large sums received, and that when arrested he had only 17s. 6d. at the bank—I did not trouble myself about whether they kept an account at the Society's bank—I understood there was a lot of money in the safe—they had plenty of opportunity of having money from me, and never asked me for it.

Re-examined. There were three clerks in the office also—I was only a member of the general, not of the managing, committee—I believe I got five subscribers, but I can only give the names of three.

HENRY RICHRD WORTH . I five at 7, Rushhill Terrace, Lavender Hill, and am an upholsterer—I don't know whether I am a member of the Defence Society; I paid a subscription in the early part of the year, and I don't know how long that carried me—I approved of the society's objects as set forth in the prospectus, and had no reason to doubt its genuineness—the Society gave me legal assistance in two or three cases—I was charged under the Bankruptcy Act and assisted very materially—I was provided with solicitor and counsel at the trial, and the case broke down on cross-examination and did not go to the Jury—I only paid the Society my 10s. 6d. subscription, and nothing towards the expenses—I always found Jervis a straightforward man in his business relations with me, and had no reason to doubt he would carry out his engagements with me to the best of his power.

Cross-examined byMR. MIRAMS. I was charged with misappropriation of funds, I believe, that ought to have come to. the trustee—I think it was not disclosing to the trustee funds, under the Debtors Act—I am Knight's neighbour; he canvassed me in the usual way—I went to the Society's office, 84, Finsbury Pavement, in January or February, and became a member, anticipating this affair—the Defence Society got me off—I was very grateful to Mr. Jervis; I think he did his duty very well—I thought he was a very straightforward, honourable man, and think so now, I withhold my judgment till after the trial—I have been out of Court all the time—I felt the want of sympathy in my own case.

WILLIAM AYCKBOURNE . I lived at Asterlie Road, Fulham; I have lately removed—I have been an omnibus driver for 22 years, and had no stain on my licence—I became acquainted with the Society about July last—I required their assistance in prosecuting Mr. Hare, the manager of the London General Omnibus Company, for libel here—he got off—I was out of work for four and a half years—I was assisted by the Society—I saw Mr. Jervis on several occasions—he took an interest in it—I had no money to pay; the Society took up my case free of expense—Jervis helped me with a little money to go on with—I told him I might be able to repay him—I have had no reason to complain of his conduct—he was always very kind to me, and gave me all the assistance I wanted.

Cross-examined byMR. MIRAMS. I signed a paper like that—I did not pay anything; they never asked me to—Mr. Lynch appeared for me three or four times at Hammersmith—I was told Jervis paid his fees.

By theCOURT. There was a prosecution for libel against the directors of the Western district of the Company on a report he had made in discharge of his duty in complaining of the conduct of a driver—by an accident my name was given instead of the right name—I was told over and over again it was a mistake, and not to go on, and I should be taken on

by the society again if only I got myself out of the hands of the Defence Society; but I could not do it then.

Re-examined. I was aware that many applications were made to get me reinstated without proceedings.

WILLIAM EDGAR MILLBANK . I live at 2, Edith Terrace, Victoria Road, Upton, and am employed by my father travelling about with pictures—I was one of the original canvassers for the Defence Society—I have no reason to doubt the society was a bond fide one—I consented to be a member of the general committee—I approved of the objects of the Society, and of the prospectus.

Cross-examined byMR. MIRAMS. I am 20 years old—I never introduced anybody to the Society, and did no business for them—I went to no committee meeting, signed no cheques, received and paid no money—I once went to the office for some more prospectuses, and had about 12—I approved of the Society if carried out properly—I can't say if it was carried out properly—I did not join to become a public philanthropist, but thought if I got business it would be better for me—I did not think they would do me good in my business—I had no law business.

Re-examined. I was allowed a small commission—that is what I meant by business.

ALFRED CURTIS . I live at 25, Fore Street, Kennington, and am a commission and insurance agent—I was one of the original canvassers for the Defence Society—a small commission was to be allowed me, which was the sole remuneration I was to receive—I had not the slightest reason to doubt the Society was a genuine one—I read the prospectus and approved of the objects put forward in it.

Cross-examined byMR. MIRAMS. I approved of getting a commission—I got no subscribers and got no commission—I was a member of the committee for several months—I distributed these circulars—I several times went to the office—I attended no committee meeting, and signed no minutes—I was not consulted as to the employment of collectors and clerks, or as to how much they should deposit.

43. WILLIAM HISLOP VAN BAEELE (51) PLEADED GUILTY to several indictments for embezzling the sums of 672l. 17s. 4d., 93l. 9s. 1d., and other sums, of the French Protestant Church Society, his masters.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. And

Reference Number: t18841117-44

44. THOMAS JAGGER (28) to unlawfully failing to discover to his trustee in bankruptcy certain goods; also for obtaining goods on credit within four months of his bankruptcy, with intent to defraud.— Five Days' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

WILLIAM BALL . I keep the Crown and Sceptre, Mile End—the prisoner called on me and said that he was a traveller for Messrs. Goode, and got orders from me from time to time—I received goods on May 6th value

3l. 7s. 6d., which I paid him on June 30th—he receipted this bill in my presence.

Cross-examined. He had called a month previously—he told me that he had Messrs. Goode's cigars to sell; he handed one of their cards with "Presented by A. Newman" in writing.

Re-examined. He was represented by a friend, who said "This is a traveller from Messrs. Goode," and he said "I come from Messrs. Goode."

BENJAMIN JAMES CARTER . I keep the Durham Castle, Westbourne Park—the prisoner called on me and I gave him an order, which this statement represents, and in two days I received the goods—I went into the house on June 10th, and received the goods two days afterwards—I was first introduced to him at Stratford, when he presented Messrs. Goode's card—the invoice is dated July 1st to make the credit run even—he came again on 7th July; I paid him 3l. 3s., and he signed this receipt.

JOHN BENNETT . I keep the Coach and Horses, Broadway, Stratford—I was in the habit of giving the prisoner orders for cigars—this order of 24th June for goods value 12l. was a lump order—he told me he would give me three months' credit if I liked—I said "It don't make make any difference; I will pay you on delivery if you like"—he said "There is no hurry for the money"—he came in for orders two or three times in the interval, and on 2nd September I received the statement of account by post—he came afterwards, and I said "I will pay you for these cigars"—he made out the bill; it came to 11l. 14s.—there is discount, and the carman had had empties—I paid him the money and he gave roe this receipt.

JOHN GOOCH . I keep the Vincent, at Canning Town—I gave the prisoner an order for cigars, which were delivered about 10th June—he said that he was a traveller from Mr. Goode—on 3rd September he came for the money—I paid him 3l. 3s.—this is the receipt.

Cross-examined. He did not say that he had Messrs. Goode's cigars to sell; he Raid "I am a traveller for Messrs. Goode."

JOHN WILSON HIGGINS . I keep the White Hart, Long Lane, West Smithfield—I gave the prisoner an order for cigars about September amounting to 1l. 1s.—he was introduced by a friend, and handed me one of Messrs. Goode's cards—I have not got the card now; it had on it "Presented by H. Newman"—I got the goods about two days afterwards, and next time he called I paid him, and he gave me this receipt—Messrs. Goode afterwards sent in an account, and I met the prisoner and said "I have had another account sent in from Goode's for that guinea I paid you"—he said "It is a mistake; I will see it rectified."

RICHARD JOSEPH LANGLEY . I am a collar dresser, of 37, Baldwin Street, City Road—I gave the prisoner an order for a box of cigars—this invoice came with them, dated 30th September—I met him in the street in the middle of the next week, paid him the 18s. 6d., and he gave me this receipt.

Cross-examined. I have known him a number of yean—he has borne the character of an honest, straightforward man as far as I know—I belong to a society which he belongs to.

EBENEZER SAMUEL GOODE . I am in partnership with my cousin as E. S. and A. G. Goode, at 51, Newgate Street, tobacconists and cigar manufacturers and dealers—when I entered the firm in 1882 the prisoner

was foreman at our factory at Lewisham—lie had been so about 18 months, and his wife was employed as forewoman—he left in November, 1882, and she left shortly afterwards—we gave him notice to leave, and then made a verbal arrangement with him as our town traveller at 30s. a week—he had had a small round previously, but only one day in the week—we agreed to give him 30s. and 5 per cent, commission on all he did over 20l. a week—he was to work all the week, and was not allowed to represent any one but our firm—in February this year we told him that his business was so small we could not go on in the same way, and we withdrew his salary, and put him on 5 per cent.—that went on for three weeks—he then applied to us that he was so low in funds he could not get on at all; that he expected an arrangement to be made with some German Association that was starting in two months, and he hoped we would allow him to remain till then and leave us amicably—we considered it, and said we would give him the same terms as before with an an addition of 1 1/4 percent, commission on all he collected, and 5 per cent, commission on all orders—the cash sheets were on a desk for the use of travellers when they came in the morning and brought in their notes and pocket books—these (produced) are cash sheets signed by the prisoner—he was supposed to come every morning, but he did not—if he missed a morning he ought to fill up a cash sheet next day if he had cash to pay in—these sheets extend from June 26th to September—Mr. Balls's 3l. 7s. 6d. is not entered, nor is Mr. Carter's 3l. 3s., nor Mr. Bennett's 11l. 14s., nor Mr. Langley's 18s. 6d.—we gave the prisoner notice at the beginning of September, and he was paid his weekly salary up to October 4th—up to that time we had no idea that he had embezzled money—he has not paid over these six sums; we put the matter in Mr. Bowker, the solicitor's hands, early in October.

Cross-examined. I was in the firm 30 years ago; I was there in 1881, I knew that the prisoner had a connection of his own in the tobacco trade—I believe the then firm sent out jointly with him a notice to various persons, but I don't think I saw it—I have not the slightest recollection of this circular (produced)—I have never seen it—I did not read it when you put it in my hands last Tuesday—my becoming a partner was the reason of the prisoner's dismissal—I don't dispute that he has traded under the name of J. Henderson and Co., but I only know it from hearsay—the firm knew that he supplied goods to the Civil Service Stores in that name, but I did not know—I think there were two parcels sent in that name since I have been a partner, but I can't tell without looking at the books—there were a good many dealings between our firm and the Civil Service Stores through the prisoner, he being our traveller—the Stores ceased to deal with us some time ago because we would not advertise in their list, and we got them to take our goods under cover of Henderson's firm—we were not paid for quite all the goods supplied to them, and we delivered to the prisoner this account (produced) of the goods which the Stores had not paid for—the cigars supplied to the Stores were the prisoner's own brand; they were called "El Trebla"—we bought that brand of him, and paid him for it—the accounts with the Civil Service Stores were paid to the prisoner in the ordinary way, by cheque, I think—I can't say whether the cheques were payable to J. Henderson and Co.—I suppose I saw some of them; I can't recollect—I kept some of the books—the cheques were passed through 'my hands

since November, 1882—I presume they were endorsed by the prisoner J. Henderson and Co.—this is another account for our firm to Mr. Newman (for 10s. 6d.)—I made the arrangement with the prisoner personally when he was engaged in February, 1882—I spoke to the firm—he had to travel all over London—we allowed him nothing for his expenses but what I state, he could use it as he liked—the customers we gave him were mostly publicans; I do not think they are the persons to do business with without spending money—I distinctly say that we gave him the 30s. as salary and nothing as expenses—I do not think his expenses would come to 5s. a week—I don't know about 4s.—if he had not come one morning we should have said nothing to him, but if he had cash to pay in he should come—he was very regular in collecting cash, and sometimes he did not come when he had cash to pay in—though the agreement was verbal, this form of agreement without date was offered to the prisoner just previous to February—it is our ordinary form (This mentioned a salary of 2l. sterling per annum, and 1 1/4 and 5 per cent.)—that is only a form—I am almost sure that the formal agreement was before we resumed the 30s. a week—my cousin knew that the offer I made to the prisoner had been refused, but I don't know whether he was present—I mean to say that after refusing that munificent offer of 2l. per annum and 1 1/4 and 5 per cent., he took lower terms—to the best of my belief he had no banking account—I think we received this letter from him on 6th October (This complained of the prosecutors sending out a circular to the prisoner's customers; charged them with adulterating tobacco at the factory, asking them to revoke their circular by another, and stating that he should hold them responsible for his maintenance)—we had issued a circular, on-30th September this year—we had told him what we were about to do, but he had not seen it, and did not know the contents from us—he left us on 3rd September—he did not then complain of the circular—he did not say that he had sustained loss through our firm—he muttered something as he went out of the counting house about if we would not settle it amicably it might come to litigation—I think the conversation which led to that was about this very circular—I said "Why, the balance is on the other side, and if you threaten me with litigation we shall have our counterclaim," or something of that kind—I did not follow him out. and shout that out—my reply came last—that is how he left us—he did not put these questions to me at Guildhall; he made no defence at all—I can't say whether Mr. Wontner asked me there whether the prisoner had any claim against us, or that he stated that he had—I have said at another time "The prisoner was informed of that circular, and naturally did not approve of the system, but expressed no further dissent"—that was before he actually left us—he was informed that we were about to issue a circular, but, as far as we knew, he did not see it, because it was issued on 3rd September—I said at Guildhall that he had never dissented, and I say so now, although I have told you of his complaint, and our saying that we had a counterclaim.

Re-examined. I think we sent a small parcel of goods to the Stores within a short time of his leaving—that was the last parcel sent—they were sample boxes which Newman left himself—the Stores account we kept in his name—in two receipts put into my hand we have made Newman debtor for goods—they are of the same class—we allow our

servants to buy 4s. or 5s. worth of cigars or tobacco—J. Henderson and Co. have no place of business to my knowledge; the name was never used to my knowledge except with regard to the Civil Service Stores, and at that time the prisoner had 30s. a week—the Stores wanted us to advertise in their book ten or fifteen years ago, and that would have damaged us with our customers—that was before my time—the total amount to the Stores between March and September was 2l. 5s., that was since we resumed the 30s. a week—the business at the factory had been conducted by the prisoner's wife as forewoman, but it was our factory—I do not know that the prisoner and his wife traded as Henderson and Co.—we bought several brands shortly after the circular—from the time I came into the business Mrs. Newman had nothing to do with it so far as I am concerned—on 5th October, 1882, the prisoner wrote "Compensate me for the wrongful dismissal of my wife"—there had been no claim for money in the interval as compensation for his wife, nor had he complained of the goods being deteriorated—we did not debit him with any goods—if we lost customers it was not his loss—we had no knowledge of his having private customers, but he may have called our customers his, as other travellers do—this is our circular of September, 1884 (Stating that they were going to dispense with travellers, stating terms for cash, and enclosing price list)—we only addressed that to persons who had dealings with us—I did not know of any existing place of business or books of account of Henderson and Co. after the circular of 1881—his commission was paid weekly with his salary—he claims 6l. 5s. 9d. in his statement—he had made no claim for that while I was a partner, he being paid week by week—we got his letter a day or two after he left, and we took it to Mr. Bowker—there is no cash sheet filled up by him between 28th June and 8th July—July 8 being the first time he accounts for money received, he omits Bell's 3l. 7s. 6d. and Carter's 3l. 3s.—he often said that his expenses were heavy—he never give us notice to quit—he made no claim to pocket money to pay his expenses—he had five per cent only for three weeks—if he had reported these payments he would have had 1 1/4 on them—during the six months previous to leaving the service 2l. 17s. 11d. Was all the business done in Newman's name—it is entered as "Newman, sundries," and there are names in that account—he was paid 1 1/4. for collection upon those sums; lots of names are down, but the only place where the goods were sent was the Civil Service Stores—I swear that the customers had invoices direct from us.

ALFRED GOODE . I have been in this business nearly thirty years—from July, 1881, the prisoner and his wife were interested in a firm of Henderson—I paid for their brands and labels while he was in my service—we thought it better to continue the brands as his customers had been having the cigars under his name—he was foreman in the factory and wished to go on with his old customers, and keep up his old connection, and we made arrangements to give him 2l. a week, 5 per cent, on orders, and allow him to go out once a week—we did not reduce his salary at the factory for that—while at the factory he gave the whole of his time except that day to our service—we dismissed him from the factory in November, 1882, when we had a change in our establishment—from March to February, 1882 and 1883, he had no salary at all; he ceased to be foreman of the factory in November, 1882; we wanted to do what we could for him, and having a traveller's round vacant, we offered it to him and he accepted it—he had 30s. a week salary and 5 per cent, commission on all

trade done over 20l.—during the whole of that time he was settled with weekly; we had reason to complain of the amount of business he brought, and mere was a disruption of the agreement—he remained without salary four weeks, hut as he represented that he could not go on, and we were satisfied that it could not pay him, we went back to the former arrangement and gave him a greater advantage—for two months he accepted these terms, and they continued down to the time of his finally leaving—he was settled with weekly—these (produced) are his cash sheets; he has signed each—there is no cash sheet between 28th June and 28th July—on 3rd September he accounts for six sums amounting to 30l. 6s.; there is no entry of 11l. 14s. from Bennett, or of 3l. 3s. on 12th September, or 1l. 1s. from Higgins—on 20th September he accounts for 3l. 4s. 6d. In one sum—I have got his cash sheet of 25th September, there is no account of Langley 18s. 6d.—he never claimed compensation for the wrongful dismissal of his wife before October, 1884, when his notice terminated and he left our service, or any claim for money spent upon licensed victuallers.

Cross-examined. I know the connection the prisoner had through his wife, and that he went away one day in the week to look after his customers with our consent, and this circular was eventually issued by me and him—the whole of his time was to be given to us except that one day, and he then went out in our service—we engaged him as foreman of the factory, and to do everything required of him—not to sweep out the place; that would be ridiculous—I engaged him about May, 1881—when my cousin came into the firm we altered that engagement—when we took him on as traveller I and my partner both saw him; we told him we would start him as town traveller aft 30s. a week salary and 5 per cent, commission on all over 20l., and as the trade he was doing while at the factory was not sufficient, we would hand over another traveller's customers to him—then, after alterations, he went on on the same terms, with an additional 1 1/4 per cent, for cash up to the end of October—we did not renew the agreement, it went on.

Re-examined. No alteration was made in the agreement up to the time he left—he ceased being foreman at the factory when Mr. Goode became my partner, and was in no other capacity after that but town traveller—he would have to do anything but what was degrading.

FREDERICK GEROGE HUNT . I am an admitted solicitor, and am acting as managing clerk to Mr. Bowker, 1, Gray's Inn Square, who is solicitor to Messrs. Goode—on 9th or 10th October the prisoner came to my office in consequence of my sending a letter—Mr. Bowker was present—I carried on the conversation principally—the prisoner was very much agitated, and almost crying—I told him that Messrs. Goode had reason to believe that he had received moneys for which he had not accounted—I think he said yes, he would go round to the customers with Messrs. Goode, and let them know what sums he had received—he said he could make up his deficiencies in six months, as certain moneys or businesses ware coming to him from abroad, and he asked us to advise him what to do—we told him we could not do that, and he said should he write to us or to Messrs. Goode, offering to go round to the customers, and make up his deficiency in that way—we told him he must act entirely on his own judgment, but that any letter he might write might probably be used in evidence against him—he understood that there was a complaint of his embezzlement at that time; no amount was mentioned, I think—at that

interview he said something about his having a claim for the wrongful dismissal of his wife some time back, and he generally complained that he had been badly treated and had claims—I think I said we had no instructions as to that, and that that did not affect the present question, and the matter, I think, was not further discussed—we certainly did not withdraw the complaint of embezzlement—he set up no claim of being able to use their moneys for his expenses and not enter them in his cash-sheet.

Cross-examined. This is the letter I wrote him on 8th October, before saying we charged him with embezzlement. (This stated that they had found he had failed to acquaint them with amounts received on their behalf, and that unless he communicated with them by to-morrow, they would take immediate steps against him for embezzlement; that if he repeated the statements in his letter, they should proceed against him for libel, and that the claim he made for compensation was absurd.) I drafted the letter—I had received instructions that the claim for compensation was absurd—he called twice—on the second occasion, the 11th October, his manner was very different; he said that if he went round to the customers he should require to be paid, and that his travelling expenses must also be paid, and that he must have compensation for the various claims which he had mentioned previously—subsequently I received this letter from him, dated the same day. (Stating that Messrs. Goode seemed to consider themselves the injured parties, but that he was the only sufferer, and that therefore they had best carry out that day's decision to prosecute him.)

BAXTER HUNT (City Detective). At 10 o'clock on the morning of 12th October I found tne prisoner in High Street, Lewisham, and took him in custody—I told him it was for embezzlement, and mentioned Mr. Bennett, 11l. 14s.; Mr. Ball, 3l. 7s. 6d.; Mr. Langley, 18s. 6d.—he replied, "Yes, quite right; they are paid in in other names, I plead justification. I am not a servant"—I took him to Snow Hill Police-station; he was there charged, and said "I plead justification, I am not a servant."

NOT GUILTY

Reference Number: t18841117-46

46. ALBERT NEWMAN was again indicted for embezzling 3l. 7s., 11l. 14s., and 18s. 6d., received by him for his masters, Messrs. Goode.

MR. BESLEY, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18841117-47

47. THOMAS ISAAC DANIELS (44) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously marrying Sophia Clutterbuck, his wife being alive. Recommended to mercy by the prosecutrix and also by his wife.

He received a good character.— To enter into recognisances.

NEW COURT.—Friday, November 21st, 1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18841117-48

48. MICHAEL CORCORAN (26) , Robbery, with other persons, on John William Vincent, and stealing a watch and chain and other articles, his property.

MR. PELLEWProsecuted; WARBURONDefended.

JOHN WILLIAM VINCENT . I live at 8, Arthur Street, Oxford Street—on 23rd October, or the morning of the 24th, I was in Arthur Street, going home, and was accosted by about six men—the prisoner was among them—I had seen him before several times—he snatched my watch and

chain, put his foot behind me and tripped me up—I got up and ran after him to the end of the street, when I was tripped up again by one of his associates—I got up again and ran on the opposite side of the road after them, and was again tripped up by one of his associates, and when I got up one of my ankles was hurt, and I could hardly walk—there was a lamp at the corner of Bucknall Street, a very few yards off—this (produced) is my watch—I had only a common steel chain, which was not recovered except the bar—I have no doubt the prisoner is one of the men who attacked me—I knew him by sight.

Cross-examined. I had been to the Aquarium with two friends—I had had a few glasses of drink, but I could walk all right, and knew what was going on—the prisoner lives near me; I think it is in Nottingham Gardens—I next saw him when I was taken down to pick him out, and he totally denied it.

By theCOURT. My ankle was hurt very much, and I could hardly walk, and my knee was grazed.

HENRY BARTLETT . I live at 12, Brunswick Street, King's Cross—I was in Arthur Street talking to a female, and saw six or seven men run round from Oxford Street to the corner of a street by a leather warehouse—the prisoner then ran by me close to the corner of Laurence Street—there was a lamp there, and I had seen him before, and have no doubt he is the man—three or four minutes afterwards Vincent came by limping, and without a hat.

Cross-examined. I had never seen Vincent before—I had had no liquor that night—the men dispersed in different directions—they hustled the man on the opposite side of the way, but I thought it was an ordinary fight—if I had known that the prisoner had stolen a watch I could have caught him—the woman I was talking to told me who the prosecutor was—the prisoner ran by me very quickly—it is not a dark street—I was standing under a lamp.

WALTER DAVIS . I am a pawnbroker of Catherine Street, Strand—on 24th October, about 2 p.m., this watch was pledged with me for 2l. by a very respectable man, not the prisoner—this is the ticket—the most it is worth is 3l.

WILLIAM BROWN (Detective E). On Friday, 24th October, about 1.40 p.m., Bartlett pointed out the prisoner to me, and I said "I am a police officer, and shall take you in custody for stealing a watch, with six others, from a gentleman at the corner of Arthur Street last night"—he said "All right, Brown, I will go with you; I know nothing about it; I am as innocent as a new-born baby"—I took him to the station, placed him with six other men, and Vincent picked him out the same afternoon.

Cross-examined. The men with whom he was placed were not a good deal better dressed than himself; some may have been—I went into the street and collected them from the passers by—I tried to pick out people as nearly corresponding as possible.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I was in bed at the time."

Witnesses for the Defence.

ELIZA LEE I live at 4, Nottingham Street, Seven Dials—the prisoner lives in the back parlour—I only know him by coming in and out to the first-floor front—on 23rd October, between 11 and 12, I saw the prisoner come up the court with another man, who left him half way up the court—my companion and got up to the street door and let the prisoner pass,

and at the same time the prisoner slipped—we took him to the room door—his wife opened the door, and he sat on a chair and took 6d. out of his pocket and said to his wife "Get a drop of beer"—my companion and I went for the beer—I saw him go into his room—he remained there till 1 o'clock—he could not have gone out without our seeing him—we remained sitting in the doorway from 11.20 till I o'clock.

Cross-examined. We sit out there talking very often when it is fine—it was very hot in the house—we took a jug and were about ten minutes gone for the beer—it was then just 11.20; I saw a clock at the public-house, and when we came back he was in bed—I saw him in bed—it was on a Thursday.

Re-examined. I remember the night because he was taken in custody next day.

MARY ANN KNOWLES . I live at 15, Nottingham Court, and work at the same place as the last witness—on the night before the prisoner was taken I saw the prisoner and another man come down the court; the prisoner was drunk, and the man asked me to take him indoors—we did so, and he asked his wife for a drop of beer, and gave her 6d.—me and my companion went for it, and wore about five minutes gone, and when we came back the prisoner was in bed—we sat at the street-door afterwards till 1 o'clock, and he never came out—I heard the clock at Covent Garden strike 1—I gave this evidence at the police-court.

Cross-examined. My brother lives in the house—when we have nothing else to do we sit on the doorstep telling tales and talking.

GUILTY .†— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18841117-49

49. CHARLES CHAMBERLAIN (19) , Stealing one book and two orders for the payment of 5l. and 4l. 15s. 9d. of James Scruby. Second Count, receiving the same.

MR. WARBURTONProsecuted; MR. RIBTONDefended.

JAMES SCRUBY . I live in High Street, Epping—on "Wednesday, October 29th, about 7 p.m., I was at Liverpool Street Station waiting for a train—I had a banker's paying-in book in my left breast coat pocket outside sticking out about two inches; it would not go to the bottom—there were two cheques in it—I missed it when I got home—I did not miss it in the train, but I did as soon as I got to Epping Station; that was before I got home—the prisoner had passed me two or three times on the platform, and I missed him about 7.15—these (produced) are the cheques.

Cross-examined. I don't know that I can swear to the prisoner, but I believe him to be the man who followed me—I saw him next evening at 10 o'clock at King's Cross Station—I missed the book when I got to Epping Station, and told the station-master so—other persons were in the carriage with me, but they got out on the road.

JAMES HUMPHREYS (Policeman G 378). On 30th October, at 2 o'clock, I was on duty in Great Saffron Hill, and in consequence of information I went and saw the prisoner in Mr. Grant's coffee-house—Mr. Grant handed me these two cheques, and I asked the prisoner where he got them—he said "I had them given to me at a fire in Drury Lane"—on the way to the station he said "I was in the Great Mogul Music Hall, Drury Lane, when I heard an explosion at the Electric Light Company, Covent Garden Market, and I kicked against the notes and picked them up at the corner of a court in Drury Lane"—I have made no

inquiries about a fire in Drury Lane or an explosion at the Electric Light Company.

Cross-examined. He said at Guildhall that he kicked against the book and cheques in a court from Long Acre to Bow Street, but I understood him to say Drury Lane.

The prisoner in his statement before the Magistrate said that he attended to his master's horse at 20 minutes to 7 in the presence of his mistress's brother, and then borrowed 6d. of his mistress to go to a music hall, and while there heard of an explosion at the Electric Light Works, and ran out with a lot of people, and at the corner of a court leading from Long Acre kicked against the book and put it in his pocket at 9.30; that he took it home and showed it to his mistress, who put it in a large birdcage; that when his master came home he advised him to take them to the bank or the police-station, and that he had not been in bed an hour when the constable came and took him.

Witnesses for the Defence.

CHARLES HENRY SHEPHERD . I am the brother of Mrs. Grant, who keeps a coffee-shop—she and her husband were at home on Wednesday, 29th October—the prisoner is in their employment—I came in between 11.30 and 12 that night, and found him there—he was there when I went out between 7 and 8, and I went with him to the stable and saw him feed the horse—he then went home with me—we got home at 8 or a few minutes after—Mrs. Grant was there; and I think Mr. Grant, but I am not certain—I did not hear the prisoner's conversation with Mrs. Grant, but when I came back after 11 she repeated his statement to me—I heard the prisoner say to Mr. Grant that he had been to a music hall and had found some cheques and a bank paying-in book, and he asked our advice as to what was best to be done with them—we did not know, and they were put in an aviary—I heard Mr. Grant advise him to keep them till morning, and then go to the bank and find the address of the owner and forward them—our next advice was to take them to the station—eventually he went to bed, leaving them with Mrs. Grant, but they changed their minds and communicated with the police, and a policeman came and took the prisoner.

By theCOURT. The coffee shop is at 152, Great Saffron Hill, a good twenty minutes' walk from Liverpool Street.

Cross-examined. The prisoner is a carman, and boards and lodges in the house, and does the general work when he has nothing else to do—I do not live there, I simply stayed there a few days—I was not called before the Magistrate, but Mr. and Mrs. Grant were.

THOMAS GRANT . I keep a coffee house at 152, Great Saffron Hill—the prisoner was in my service—I was at home on 29th October between 9 and 10, when he was in the stable-1 went out at. 10.30 and returned about 11.30, when my wife showed me these two cheques—I looked at them, put them in my pocket, and said to the prisoner "These cheques are useless, Charley; the best thing you can do is to take them to the bank, and I think you had better take them to the Kingsland bank"—one of them had "Kingsland branch" on it—I afterwards said "It will be better to take them to the bank in Whitechapel and see the manage; I and my brother-in-law will go with you—I afterwards changed my mind and suggested that I ought to communicate with the police—I went with my brother and spoke to a policeman, who came back

with us and took the prisoner in custody—I went with him to the station, gave the policeman the cheques between 1 and 2 o'clock, about an hour after I had them, and left the prisoner there—the owner of the cheques was examined before the Magistrate next day.

Cross-examined. I saw the prisoner between 7 and 8—I had the key of the stable in my pocket and gave it to my brother.

SARAH GRANT . I am the wife of Thomas Grant—the prisoner was in our service—I saw him first on this Wednesday night somewhere about 7 o'clock, when my brother went with him to the stable—he came back between 7.80 and 7.45, and I asked him if he had fed the horse properly—he said "Yes," and asked me to lend him 6d. and give him leave to go to a music hall—I did so, and he went out and returned about 10 o'clock, and said "Oh, Mistress, I have had a bit of luck"—I said "What is it, Charley?"—ho said "I have found this," handing me these two cheques—he asked me what he had better do with them—I said "I hardly know whether you had better take them to the police-station or leave them till the master comes home"—I put them in an aviary, and when the master came he advised the prisoner to take them to the Kingsland bank or Whitechapel bank, but a policeman came and took him in custody.

Cross-examined. It was my husband who communicated with the police, but I think the prisoner went to bed suspecting that he would do so.

NOT GUILTY .

OLD COURT.—Saturday, November 22nd, 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18841117-50

50. HENRY HOWARD (29) was indicted for unlawfully obtaining from Richard Wilkinson 3s. and other sums with intent to defraud the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society. Other Counts for false pretences.

MESSRS. BESLEYandTICKELLProsecuted.

During the, progress of the case the Recorder stated that although there may have been irregularities on the part of the prisoner, who was acting as an agent to the society, it was for theJURYto say whether there was sufficient to call on the prisoner for his defence. TheJURYdid not consider it necessary to do 80, and they found the prisoner

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Saturday, November 22nd, 1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18841117-51

51. JAMES IVY , Stealing two purses and 7l. 19s. in money, of Peter Bayne, from his person.

MR. PELLEWProsecuted.

PETER BAYNE . I am a journalist, of Worcester Park, Surrey—on 10th November, about 3.30, I was in Cheapside, near King Street—there was a dense crowd—it was Lord Mayor's day—I had in my right trousers pocket a dark purse containing 7l. 19s., and a brown purse in another pocket containing two or three foreign coins and some papers—I don't know which pocket that was in—the crowd was surging to and fro, and I was lifted off my feet—there was a knot of persons about King Street—I got clear of the crush, and then saw a man running ahead of me, trotting and scuttling along—I put my hand to my pocket where the

gold was, and it was gone; I gave chase, and called "Stop thief, stop that man"—he did not bolt, but he twisted a little to the side in the road, and when he got to the pavement I got my hand on his collar and held on till the policeman took him—these are my two purses (produced)—I first saw the purse in the policeman's hands, merely sufficiently to know that it was mine—I saw it passed from hand to hand—I did not see any young ladies till I was at the Mansion House.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. There was a dense crowd round you—you either said "I have got it from the lady or I gave it to the lady"—you said nothing about picking it up.

KATE MORRIS . I am an actress, and live at 21, Ayliff Street, New Kent Road—on 10th November, about 3.15,1 was in Cheapside with my sister, and saw Mr. Bayne running, and the prisoner walking very sharp on the pavement—it was possible for him to run, as the people were all going one way—Mr. Bayne cried out "Stop thief," and caught hold of the prisoner by the collar—I put out my elbow by his side, and took a blade parse out of his hand, and my sister got hold of his other hand and took a brown purse out—a policeman came up and took him—I handed the dark purse to the policeman.

Cross-examined. There were no gentlemen talking to us; we were alone—you would not let me take the parse out of your hand at first—I had to force your hand open by getting my other hand on your knuckles—you did not say that you picked it up, and would not let me take it—you said "What have you got me for"—Mr. Bayne had hold of your collar, and I had hold of your hand—I did not go to the station, but I went before the Lord Mayor next morning—you were not hiding the purses; anybody who caught hold of your hand could see them—I lost a gold bracelet, which had been given to me, in the struggle.

RHODA MORRIS . I am a sister or the last witness, and am a dress-maker—we live together—on 10th November, about 3 or 3.15, I was with her in Cheapside, and saw her stop the prisoner with her elbow, and take a black purse out of his right hand, and while she was doing that I took a brown purse out of his left hand and gave it to the policeman—this is it—he said "What have you got me for? what are you doing?"

Cross-examined. My sister had rather a difficulty in taking the purse from you—you ran into her arms—I had rather a difficult job to get the purse from your hand—I had to use two hands to get it—I held your hand with one hand and took it with the other—you did not give it to me.

ANDREW MACLUARY (City Policeman 600). On 10th November, between three and four, I was in Cheapside, and heard outcries of "Police" and "Stop thief"—I saw the prisoner in the midst of a crowd outside Sir John Bennett's, and Mr. Bayne close by him, and these two young ladies holding him one on each side—this purse was in his hand—I made a grasp at it and got hold of it, but Kate Morris took it from him and handed it to me, and the other witness gave me this other purse directly afterwards—he struggled hard to get away, and kicked me in the lower part of my back, but with another officer's assistance I got him to the station—he said on the way that he would go no farther—I said "If you don't go we shall have to carry you"—we were obliged to throw him down—he then got up and walked—I searched him at the station and found 7s. 1d. on him—the dark purse contained 7s. 10s. in gold and

some silver—Mr. Bayne identified both purses, and told me what was in them before they were opened—I did not see them running, but it was possible to run.

Cross-examined. Your right hand was up and your left hand was down—Kate Morris had hold of the upper part of your arm—I did not hear you say that you picked them up and would not let the lady take them till I came.

The prisoner in his defence said that he saw the purses on the ground and picked them up.

FREDERICK OHLSON . I am a pawnbroker at Cold Harbour Lane, Brixton, and other places—on 29th July, 1883, my father and I engaged the prisoner Herbert as assistant, and he remained with us up to September 2nd—I know his writing—these addresses are written by him—we were dissatisfied with him—some watches were missing while he was in our service, one watch particularly; the assistants all knew that, and they had a regular hunt for it on the Saturday before Herbert left on the Sunday morning—I had given him a month's notice the previous day, August 29th; that was the day his month was up; we engaged him by the month—a day or two after he left I went to his fathers place, 9, Streuan Square, and told him that his son had left on Sunday morning and had not returned, and I had come to know the reason; that a watch had been missed on Saturday night, and I wished to know if he could throw any light on it—he said that his son had been discharged by the foreman—I said that must have been a lie, for they all stopped up on Saturday night till 1 o'clock waiting his return, and he was due at 11.30—he said that his son had gone out to post a letter, and he would go with me to find him; we could not find him, and I left—Herbert called upon me the next day and said that he knew nothing about the watch, and he was not going to be watched as he was there—I said "It is a very strange coincidence that you should leave in that way, and the watch should be missing on the Saturday night"—he said "I don't know anything about the watch"—I said "You need not apply to me for any character; I shall not give you one"—he said "Oh, I can get a character from a dozen persons; I am independent of you"—next day I received this billhead; the body of it is in Henry Base's writing and the signature is John Base's: "5-9-83. Will you be so good as to let me know by the first post the charge against my son. It is quite clear he was discharged from the Sunday morning, so that sitting up for him till 1 o'clock is all rot. I wish to know what you have against him, that I may write to his former employers, and throw to the winds the charge of absconding. John Base." He never applied to me for a character—the watch has not been found—it was a pledge—it was kept in the safe—Herbert had not the key, but it was frequently left open in business hours, and he was in the habit of going there.

Cross-examined by John Base. My father received a very good character with your son from Mr. Tarrant, and I saw Mr. Tarrant myself—I went to him because his name is on this paper.

Cross-examined by Henry Base. The watch was not missed before you received notice to quit, but you did not suit me—other persons went to the safe.

WILLIAM HENRY ROWLEY . I assist my father, a pawnbroker in High Street, Camden Town—in October, 1883, we advertised for a warehouse boy; the prisoner Herbert answered it, and we saw him—he said he had lived with Mr. Burgess, of Long Acre, six months, who had gone away, and since then he had lived with his father, John Base, a poulterer—I asked him if he had had a situation with a pawnbroker, and he said that he had not—that is the usual form of question—I went and saw his father, and told him that his son said that he had lived with Mr. Burgess, who had gone away since when he had lived with him—the father said that was so, and that he had lived nowhere else—I then engaged him, believing the statement that both gave—he was engaged in October, and was discharged at the beginning of December because he could not do his work properly, and there were other reasons—I had no application for a character afterwards from either of them.

THOMAS DOOLEY . I am a pawnbroker of 81, Whitechapel Road—in April, 1884, I advertised for an assistant, and Herbert Base replied on this printed heading from Struan Square with the words "Own handwriting" on it—he afterwards came and told me he had been living three years with Mr. Burgess, of Long Acre, and had left him nine or twelve months, since when he had been assisting his father in the poultry business—I asked him for a reference—he said that Mr. Burgess had gone away—I knew that there had been an upset there, and I said I would take the foreman's reference—he said "The foreman has also run away"—I rather liked him, and said I would take him for a month on trial, and he came next day—before the month was up I received some information and kept a watch upon him, and on Sunday morning, May 11th, when he was leaving the shop to go home, between 8 and 9 o'clock, with a black bag, I made an excuse to send him for some tobacco and newspapers, so that the bag should be brought upstairs to me—when he came back I asked him where the key of the bag was—he said "In my pocket"—I said "Open it, if you please"—he did so readily, and he had some tobacco there and one of my pledges done up in paper, two lady's night-dresses—I asked him what he had done with the ticket—he said he had torn it up and thrown it in the fireplace upstairs—it should have been attached to the wrapper—I told him to get out of the place, as he would hear from the Pawnbrokers' Protection Society next week for obtaining a situation by false pretences—I afterwards received this letter from him (Dated 13th May, asking for forgiveness for his ingratitude, and stating that he had never taken a single article off the premises)—I took no notice of that.

WILLIAM PENTON . I am manager to the executors of Mr. Avant, a pawnbroker, of 114, Fleet Street—on 14th July I advertised for an assistant and received this letter in reply (Mr. Ohlson stated that this was in Herbert Base's writing. It was signed Henry Base, offering his services, and stating that he had three years' experience of the pawnbroking business)—he called on 16th July and said he had lived with Mr. Burgess, of Long

Acre, about three years, and he left him about twelve months, since when he had been assisting his father, a poulterer—I asked if he could give a reference to Mr. Burgess—he said "No, Burgess has gone and given up business, but my father can give you a reference"—I made an appointment for his father to come and see me—he said he had not been in any pawnbroker's employment except Mr. Burgess—John Base came to me next day alone—I asked him if he could give his son a good character—he said yes, that he was honest and industrious—I asked him if he had been in any pawnbroker's employment except Mr. Burgess—he said "No, he has been with me the whole of the time since he left Mr. Burgees, about 18 months"—I wished to have a written reference to show the executors, and this is what he wrote: "This is to certify that my son, Herbert Base, is honest and trustworthy in every way, and that I can strongly rekamend him in every way. John Base, 14, Struan Square"—I received some information and did not accept Herbert Base's services.

WILLIAM CHESTER . I am a pawnbroker, of Stanhope Street, Strand—about 7th October I wanted an assistant, advertised, received an application from Herbert Base, and saw him—he said he had been living with Mr. Burgess, of Long Acre, three years—I asked him how long he had left—he said about nine months—I asked him if he had had any situation since in the trade—he said "No"—I asked him if he had applied for any situation in the trade since—he said "No"—I said "What have you been doing since?"—he said he had been helping his father, a poulterer, and gave me his address on a bill-head—I' said that I should like to see his writing, and he wrote "Henry Base, 14, Struan Square"—the father came next day—I said "He says he has been with Mr. Burgess"—he said "Yes"—I said "He says he was there three years and left nine months ago"—he said "Yes"—I said "Has not he applied anywhere else?"—he said "No"—I said "We don't usually take parents' references, but I will take your reference; is he honest?"—he said "Yes, he is very honest and a willing chap"—I received some information and did not take him.

HENRY FILEMAN . I am a pawnbroker, of Hornsey Road and other places—about 21st October I advertised for an assistant, received an application from Herbert Base, saw him, and asked him what he had been employed at—he said at one of my houses, my Upper Street shop—I said "Where have you been employed since?"—he said at Burgess's, in Long Acre, and that he had left there four months ago, since when he had been employed by his father, a poulterer, who would speak for him—the father called on the following day; Mrs. Fileman saw him and engaged him, and almost directly after he came into my service I received information about him, and told him he had got into my place by false pretences, as it was some years ago that he had been at Mr. Burgess's—he said that he could not recollect whether it was three or four months or three or four years ago; he had a bad memory—I asked him to turn out his pockets—he had two waistcoats on, one under the other, in one of which was a penknife, which we could not swear to—I asked him what he wanted two waistcoats on for—he said "To keep me warm"—I turned him out there and then.

THERESA FILEMAN . I saw John Base when he called—he said that his son was very honest, and it was quite correct he had not had any employment

since he left Mr. Burgess—that was all I was told to inquire into, and I engaged him, as my husband was in the country.

GEORGE MILLAR (Policeman E 251). On 17th November I served this summons to 14, Struan Square, Chelsea—I have been to 253, Fulham Road; there is no business of a poulterer carried on there now by John Base, but he did so two years ago.

John Base in his defence stated that he did not believe his son had robbed any one of a halfpenny, and if he had not spoken up for him after Mr. Ohlson turned him out he would have been ruined; that as to the night-dresses, his son had a customer to whom he wished to show them, who would have given 4s. 6d. for them, and that they were pledged for only 1s. 9d., and that his taking them was an indiscretion, but not a robbery; that he told his son he would give him a reference, but, not being a pawnbroker, could not give him a character, and that he spoke of him as he found him from the time he left school. Herbert Base in his defence said he had the night-dresses to take out on approbation, but neglected to ask permission, and complained that Mr. Dooley did not ask if he had anything in his possession, but simply asked him to open the bag and then refused to hear his explanation; he complained that Mr. Ohlson had followed him about and procured his almost immediate dismissal in every case, and that in what he had done he was not aware that he was breaking the law; he was only trying to get an honest living.

ANNIE FEATHER . I am a servant at 4, Eaton Road, Haverstock Hill—on Sunday night, November 9th, I was taking a walk with a young man named Robinson near Primrose Hill; he left me alone for a short time about a quarter to 9 o'clock; the prisoner then came up to me, took hold of my arm, and said "Do you know you have no business here?"—I said "I am not aware of it"—he said "Let me see where my governor is; we will have you locked up"—he appeared to look for some one, and said "I do not see him; don't make a noise; have you any money?"—I said "I have none"—he said "Tell me no lies; you have money, give it to me"—I was afraid, and took out my purse and gave him 1s. 3d., which was all I had—I did not give him the purse—he said "Is this all you have?"—I said "Yes"—he gave me a push and said "Go along; don't make a noise in case you meet the governor"—it was not an enclosed place—Robinson came up a few minutes afterwards, and from what I said he called a constable, and the prisoner was given in charge—he had then got over a fence—I did not walk with him after he took my money—I am sure the prisoner is the man.

Cross-examined. I do not live at 4, Eaton Road now; I live at No. 8; that is in Kentish Town—I left No. 4 on the following Thursday—I am not in service now; I am now living with Mrs. Robinson, the sister-in-law of the man I was with; he lives in the same house—I had only been out since 6.30; I then went down Tottenham Court Road and met Robinson by arrangement, and we walked back to Primrose Hill; I was out of doors the whole time—the fence might be six feet

high, but anybody could get over it—I had been alone about minutes; Robinson had told me to walk on and he would catch me—it was not very dark—he left me for such a reason as any one else might have—if I had shouted he would have heard me, but I did not, because the prisoner dared me to make a noise and grappled hold of me; I did not offer him any money—Robinson did not as we went to the police-station tell me to say that I was alone—I got home about 10.10, and told Captain Bayre, my master, immediately what had happened—he did not question me—I left his service owing to this occurrence—his wife was away at the time—he went before the Magistrate and heard the case—I did not tell him I was sorry for having given the prisoner in charge—I was spoken to about six months ago for having men looking about the gate, but not since—the policeman in the case came to me and asked if I should require a solicitor; he did not say that he could procure one—the prisoner did not hurt me.

Re-examined. I did not turn round to see how far behind Robinson was—I did not see him, nor when the prisoner accosted me—I did not scream out because I was afraid of the prisoner—about ten minutes elapsed before Robinson came up.

THOMAS ROBINSON . I live at 8, Leybourne Road, Kentish Town, and am a railway platelayer—I had been keeping company with Annie Feather, I met her outside the house where she was in service on Sunday night, November 9th, and went for a walk with her over Primrose Hill—I dropped back at a little before nine, and she went on ahead—I found her in fourteen or fifteen minutes, she complained to me, and I called a policeman—when I first saw the prisoner a policeman had got him by the side of the hedge, they were walking—the fence is nearly seven feet high with sharp spikes—I did not go through the fence, he was not on the other side of it when he was taken.

Cross-examined. I first saw the prisoner when I went down in search of the man, and I said "Stop, old man"—I saw him before he was in custody because we went down the field in search of him, but I had never seen him before, he was creeping along the side of the hedge between a run and a walk—I stopped him till a constable came, but I did not hold him—it was rather dark and rather light—I met Annie Feather about six o'clock by arrangement, and we were together till a quarter to nine—I was away from her fourteen or fifteen minutes, I had to walk back some distance—I heard nothing to cause me to rejoin her hurriedly—it is not a lonely neighbourhood, you might meet a couple or two at that hour—the constable has not paid me a visit, I have not seen him.

GEORGE FRANKLING (Policeman S 453). On Nov. 9th, at 9 p.m., I was on duty on Primrose Hill, and saw Robinson and Annie Feather, a statement was made to me, and I saw the prisoner on the lower part of Primrose Hill on the same side as I was by a brick wall; there is a wooden fence there surrounding the Eton and Middlesex Cricket Ground—Robinson pointed him out and charged him with demanding money by menaces—he said "I know nothing of the charge, I have just come on the hill"—I had been on the hill from six o'clock and had seen him there twice—I first saw him run across the hill towards the back of the houses in Elworth Terrace, I saw him again a little while afterwards on the left of the hill, standing in the same position watching people—Robinson and the girl were on public ground—I took him to the station, he said on the

way that he hoped the lady would not press the charge, as he had a wife and two children—no money was found on him.

Cross-examined. I did not search the place to see if I could find any money—I went to see the prosecutrix to know whether there was anybody to conduct the prosecution—I first saw the prisoner at seven that night—it may have been a little before—we were not ten minutes going to the station, the prosecutrix walked ten or twelve yards behind us, and sometimes she ran and caught us up—she was quite sober.

The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate, said that he did not leave home till eight o'clock, that the prosecutrix offered him1s., but he did not take it, as she was acting improperly, and that both she and Robinson were the worse for liquor.

Witness for the Defence.

MARIA LOUSIA COLLETT . I am married, and live at 8, Upper Park Terrace, Haverstock Hill; the prisoner has lodged in our house two years—on Sunday night, 9th November, he was in the house up to about twenty minutes to eight; I put my little boy to bed at half-past 7, and the prisoner went into the lobby before he went out at the front door; there is a convenience there—I did not see him go out, as I know his step and I heard him cough—that is twenty minutes' walk from Primrose Hill, unless any one was going on business and walked sharp.

By theCOURT. I did not see him at 7, but he was indoors, he had not been out since the afternoon—I had not the key of the hall door, but I can pretty well vouch for his not being out—my little girl was in his room, and she said that he was lying down.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Monday, November 24th, 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18841117-54

54. HENRY MORRIS WITKOSKI (26) , Feloniously forging and uttering an endorsement to a bill of exchange for 22l. 5s. 10d., with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. POLANDandM. WILLIAMSProsecuted; MR. PURCELLDefended.

EMMA COOK . My husband is a provision merchant of Charlotte Street, Whitechapel—my maiden name was Powell—we were married in November, 1880—in May, 1880, I was living at Cardiff—I had deposited 60l. with the Principality Permanent Investment Building Society before my marriage—this is the deposit note (produced)—of that amount 22l. 5s. 10d. was standing in my name in June this year, and on 14th July I wrote this letter to the society (Requesting them to forward to her the amount invested, including interest, addressed to E. Powell, care of Mrs. Simms, 41, Bedford Street, Mile End, E.)—Mrs. Simms is my sister—it was to be sent to her because my husband was not to know of it; but he knew it was there—I received no answer to the letter—the prisoner has been a customer of ours—he lives in our street, and is a fish dealer—he has collected accounts for my husband—on 11th August I asked him to post this letter for me (To Mr. W. Sanders, Principality Building Society, Cardiff, calling hits attention to her leaving written for her money a month ago, and receiving no reply)—I did not tell him what it was about—it was sealed—I asked for a reply to be sent to my sister's in Sydney Street, but it ought to have been Bedford Street—on August 5th the prisoner called, and I told

him I had not received any answer to the letter I gave him to post, and it was about the withdrawal of money—I think I told him about my husband not knowing it—he said "These societies want waking up sometimes: shall I write for you?"—I told him he might if he would let me see the letter before he sent it, and he brought this letter later in the same day—it is his writing—I have seen him write (This was dated 25/8/84, from E. Powell to W. Sanders, Esq., making a third application for the capital and interest, and threatening, if it was not sent by return of post, to put the matter into the hands of her solicitor)—I called his attention to the address, 16, Sidney Street, and told him it should be 61, Bedford Street—he said "That I will alter," and I handed it back to him to post—on 29th August he brought me this letter from Mr. Sanders (Stating that he had only received one letter from her, requesting her to send her deposit note and her address, as he had several accounts in the same name)—the prisoner afterwards called on me and asked if I had sent my deposit note as requested—I said "No, I have not had time"—he came into the parlour and wrote a short letter saying that the deposit note was forwarded, and put it in an envelope with the deposit note, and I gave him 2d. to register it, and 1d. for the stamp—this is the letter (produced)—it is his writing—he met me in the street next day, and gave, me this receipt for the registered letter—not hearing from him or the society I wrote a long letter to Mr. Sanders—the police were communicated with, and then I saw the prisoner in custody—he never showed me the cheque for 22l. 5s. 10d. signed by W. Sanders and two directors, nor is the endorsement, "Emma Powell," my writing—I did not authorise the prisoner to write the endorsement; it is his writing, to the best of my belief—there is no truth in the statement that I made him a present of the proceeds of the cheque.

Cross-examined byMR. PURCELL. I had part of the money out before I was married and part afterwards in the beginning of 1880—my husband did not know how much I had—my sister posted the first letter—that was the letter in which 41, Bedford Street, was misread for 61—the answer to that went wrong, that was before I spoke to the prisoner—on the next occasion the letter was written with the address 16, Sidney Street—that was a wrong address and my mistake—it was after that I spoke to the prisoner, and he suggested waking the society up, and he wrote a letter requesting the money to be sent to Sidney Street instead of Bedford Place, but he said he would alter it—that letter brought a reply from Cardiff which the prisoner brought me—I did not think at all how he got it—my sister is not here—the prisoner did not go to her to get the letter to bring to me—he brought it to me in an envelope addressed "Miss E. Powell, care of Mr. Witkoski, 1, Charlotte Street, London"—that is his house—he afterwards called twice before I was down and saw my husband—my sister can write; she has a husband; he can write—we are on friendly terms—I have a half-brother—I told the prisoner I was not in a hurry for the money—after this matter when he was in custody his mother came down and suggested that the money should be either paid in one sum or by instalments; he was remanded from time to time on another matter.

Re-examined. I have never received any of my money back.

WILLIAM SANDERS . I am secretary to the Principality Permanent Building Investment Society, Cardiff—in July, 1884, the last witness

had 22l. 5s. 10d. with interest, deposited with us—the original deposit was 60l., but it had been reduced by drawing—on 17th July I received the letter which has been read, and answered it the same day, asking for Miss Powell's previous number, to which the reply was to be sent looked more like 41 than 61, and I addressed my letter to 41, Bedford Street—it came back through the Dead Letter Office—on August 6 I received this letter (Dated 25-8-84, and signed E. Powell, care of N. Witkoski, 1, Charlotte Street, Whitechapel, requesting that the amount might be sent there)—on August 22nd I received this letter (The one enclosing the deposit note)—I received the deposit note in it—on 4th September I received this letter: "Dear Sir,—I shall be greatly obliged by your sending the money, as I am wanting it. E. Powell"—I then sent a cheque for 22l. 5s. 10d. to E. Powell, 1, Charlotte Street, Whitechapel—I subsequently received a letter signed "Emma Powell," stating that a receipt would be sent when the cash was received at the bank—the cheque was returned through our bankers in the usual way, and I subsequently received this letter from the prosecutrix, stating that she had never received the money—I informed her of what had occurred.

CHARLES HENRY WILLIAMS . I am manager to Mr. Watts, a publican, of Whitechapel—I know the prisoner as a customer in the name of Davis—on 27th September he asked me to cash a cheque which was already endorsed—I said "I cannot, but if it is any accommodation I will pass it through our banking account"—I did so, and in a week, finding it was all right, I paid him the money—he said it was his sister's cheque—he called during the week and asked me to let him have some money in advance—I said that I had no interest in it and he must wait till the cheque was cleared.

Cross-examined. He showed me a letter from a Building Society when I paid him the money—I destroyed it a week afterwards, as it was no use tome—I did not read it through; I simply wanted the address—I do not know whether it was addressed to Davis or to Witkoski.

JOSEPH NEWMAN (Police Sergeant). I watched the prisoner's house from instructions, and saw him going in—I said "Excuse me, sir, what is your name?" he said "Whiting"—I had then got hold of his right arm—Mr. Cook came up and said "That is him, sir; that is the man"—I said "They have been calling you, Mr. Witkoski; I am an officer, and am going to arrest you; the charge against you will be stealing a cheque, forging it, and obtaining the sum of 22l. 5s. 10d., the money of that gentleman," pointing to Mr. Cook—he said "That is not so"—I took him to Leman Street Station, and after we had been and searched his house Mr. Abberline showed him the letter and envelope he had found there—he said "I own I had the money; I was very much pushed at the time, and will willingly pay it back."

Cross-examined. He said "I don't deny cashing the cheque"—he lives at a fried fish shop—I did not see any name over the door—after the charge was gone into he was detained on another matter which had something to do with fish.

FREDERIC ABBERLINE (Police Inspector). On 1st October I found the prisoner detained at Leman Street Station—he gave his name Henry Morris Witkuski, 1, Charlotte Street—I knew his father—I asked him which room he slept in—he said "The first-floor front"—I found there in a pocket book the letters which have been produced, and then went back to the station, and said "I have taken possession of this pocket book and

three letters which apparently had been forwarded to the society at Cardiff"—he said "Oh, I don't deny cashing the cheque. Mrs. Cook authorised me to sign her name, and said she was not in a hurry for the money.

GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18841117-55

55. HENRY MORRIS WITKOSKI (26) was again indicted, with MORRIS WITKOSKI (52) , for unlawfully obtaining by false pretences from James Brusey and others large quantities of fish, with intent to defraud.

HENRY MORRIS WITKOSKI PLEADED GUILTY .

MESSRS. POLANDandMONTAGU WILLIAMSProsecuted; MR. PURCELLDefended.

JAMES BRUSEY . I am a fish salesman at Grimsby—on 13th February I received this memorandum (This was on a printed billhead of W.H. Morris, wholesale fishfryer, of Peckham Park Road, ordering one large kit of plaice to be sent every day, and promising to send cash twice a week Signed W.H. Morris)—I replied, asking for money and references, and then received this letter (Enclosing reference to W.J. Wilcock, 1, Charlotte Street, Whitechapel, and M. Witkoski and Co., ordering 15 or 16 stone of plaice)—I sent the fish to Royal Mint Street Station, and continued sending them up to the end of the week, and on February 22nd I received this memorandum: "Dear Sir,—Send no fish for Monday without further orders. Yours respectfully, W.H. Morris." I then sent this invoice for goods, 9l. 0s. 9d., and wrote letters asking for my money, but never got it, and my letters were returned through the Dead Letter Office—I next received a letter from F. Anderson, 149, Backchurch Lane, which I have lost; it contained a label "Fish, perishable," and on reference to Witkoski I compared the writing with the reference which Witkoski had given for Morris, and recognised it, and refused to send the fish—I then received this letter (From W.H. Witkoski, of Whitechapel, fish factors and fryers, ordering fish for frying)—I remembered the name, and did not supply any goods—I then received this letter (From Hyman Morris, 149, Backchurch Lane, ordering plaice for frying and haddock, and offering town references)—I wrote asking for cash, and received this letter (From H. Morris, offering to send cash in return for fish)—I sent him some fish, believing he was carrying on a legitimate business, and that I should be paid.

Cross-examined. I looked upon it as a promise to pay—whether he had a large business or a small one had nothing to do with it provided the promise to pay was kept—I did not write to the references; I took them for granted, but I would not have taken the promise to pay without them—I never saw either of the prisoners.

Re-examined. I believed the references were genuine; I would not have sent fish without.

WILLIAM LAMBERT . I am a fish merchant at Grimsby—in February last I forwarded some fish to W.H. Morris in consequence of this correspondence (These letters were similar to the former, and referred to Witkoski, oil dealer, 1, Charlotte Street, Whitechapel, and a post-card from W.H. Morris, of Peckham, stated: "Send no fish for Monday without further order," and another, dated February 22nd, stated: "Dear Sir,—I will call on you on the 3rd of next month and settle accounts, as I have sold my business, W.H. Morris")—between February 16th and 22nd I supplied him with fish, value 11l. 3s. 6d.—I communicated with Witkoski, the referee, and his answer was favourable—I believed that it was a

genuine reference, and that Morris was carrying on a legitimate business.

THOMAS WARD BROUGHTON . I am a fish merchant of Grimsby—I received a letter, which has been destroyed, from Isaac M. Jacobs, 29, Booth Street, Brick Lane, asking me to supply him with fish—I replied "I shall be happy to supply you; terms cash; cannot do business with new customers on other terms"—I did not supply the fish—I had supplied fish early in 1881 to Henry Morris, of Newport, Monmouth-shire, who introduced me to Hyman Morris, of Victoria Street, Merthyr Tydvil—I supplied fish to a large amount to those two person, and was Not paid.

Cross-examined. The man at Newport who professed to be Henry Morris had only one eye—he is not one of the prisoners; I never saw either of them.

WILLIAM GARLAND . I am a boot-maker of 148, Commercial Road, Newport—I know the prisoners—the elder prisoner took a house in Commercial Road in May, 1880, in the name of James Morris—I know the younger prisoner as his son; he went by the name of Lipman—they parted the shop in two, and one was Morris, and the other Lipman—both names were up after a time—they gave me no notice when they left—these letters marked 67 to 75 passed between the elder prisoner and myself; they are the agreement about the lease and so forth.

Cross-examined. They occupied the place a little over 12 months—I lived next door—I saw a man with one eye there frequently—the prisoners had the whole house, and three men and a great many females lived there—one shop was a fish business, and the other second-hand clothes—I do not know who wrote the letters; it may have been the one-eyed man—he and Lipman were the sons of the elder man.

DAVID JONES . I am a wholesale bootmaker, of 121, High Street, Merthyr Tydvil—on 22nd February, 1881, I let 19 and 20, Victoria Street, to the elder prisoner—this is the agreement (produced)—I have seen the younger prisoner there and a third man who had something the matter with one eye—the elder prisoner left owing four months' rent which I never got, and he took the key away.

THOMAS ROBERT WILKINSON . I am a fish merchant—I received this letter: "Dear Sir,—You can send me daily a barrel of plaice to Mint Street Station, Great Northern Railway. Reference H. Goldstein, fish factor, 22, Split Street, Commercial Road, London. Yours, W.T. Willcock." I sent the fish—I then received this letter (Asking the prices of the kits)—I then received a number of telegrams ordering fish to the same address, which I sent from time to time, amounting to 11l. 3s. from April 1st to 10th—I have not been paid—I believed that the references were good, and that I was dealing with a genuine trader—I know the elder prisoner by the name of Morris, he deals in old clothes at White-haven—I did not know that he was the same man who had written to me for the fish—he admitted that his son had been trading with me in the spring of 1879.

RICHARD SIMPSON . I am a fish merchant of Hull—in March last I received these letters (From J. Anderson, of Commercial Lane, asking to be supplied with plaice for frying, and afterwards ordering 15 or 16 stone to be sent to Royal Mint Station)—I supplied fish amounting to 6l. 5s. 4d., but was

never paid—this envelope found at Charlotte Street is one of mine—I believed Anderson was carrying on business at that address.

HENRY JEFFS . I am a fish merchant at Grimsby—in April last I received this letter (From F. Anderson, ordering 14 stone of plaice)—I then received these two post-cards (Ordering cod)—I sent the fish by the Great Northern Railway to Mint Street, on account of the references I got, and believing that Anderson was carrying on business there, but I sent a man to find him who could get no information—I did not get the money.

JOHN SHOOTER . I am one of the firm of Shooter and Widdicomb, fish merchants, of Hull—we received this memorandum: "Dear Sir,—Can you supply me with plaice for frying; can give references to parties I have dealt with six or seven years, Isaac Jacobs"—I also received this (Ordering a barrel of live plaice to be sent to I. Jacobs, at Mint Street Station, and referring to Witkoski and Co., 1, Charlotte Street)—these two letters found at Charlotte Street are from us requiring bank references—we did not supply the fish.

WILLIAM MEAD . I am a carman in the employ of the Great Northern Railway—I have delivered fish from Mint Street Station to Morris, 55, Green Hundred Road, Peckham Park Road, ten or twelve times, which were signed for on my delivery sheet, but I never saw either of the prisoners.

Cross-examined. The man who signed did not appear to have anything the matter with his eyes—the same person always signed.

GEORGE RIPPINGALE . I am a porter at Mint Street Station—I have been in the habit of receiving fish from Grimsby and Hull, addressed to Anderson and Jacobs; it has been delivered to them; the prisoner Morris has called at the station for fish consigned to Anderson, which was taken away in a barrow by a man with one eye, whom I have seen on different occasions with Morris—the same man has also come for fish in the name of Jacobs—another man has also come with Morris for fish consigned to Anderson.

Cross-examined. Morris has spoken to me two or three times at the station; the one-eyed man first came in March, many people came there to inquire whether fish had arrived—Morris came twice each morning on four different days—first to inquire if I had any fish, and then with the one-eyed man with the barrow—I am sure he is the man.

WALTER BLAKE . I am a checker at Royal Mint Street Station—fish were consigned there from time to time from Hull and Grimsby to Anderson, Morris, and Jacobs—Morris Witkoski came there about four times to inquire for fish consigned to Anderson—he was alone.

Cross-examined. He was a stranger when he first came—I see a great many faces in the course of a week.

THOMAS HEWES . I live at 246, Upton Place, and own 1, Charlotte Street, Whitechapel, which I let in April, 1883, to Mr. Williamson, that is Morris Witkoski—this is the agreement (produced)—I have seen him upwards of twenty times; I have seen the other prisoner there—the house had to undergo certain repairs; they had to take lodgings out and I gave them a half-quarter's rent—he told me that his name was not Williams but Witkoski.

Cross-examined. He said that in consequence of people not being able to pronounce his name he took the name of Williamson—when I saw him in the dock I did not hear him say "It is me."

STEPHEN BEEDHAM . I live at Walthamstow and own 149, Back Church Lane—on 10th November, 1883, I let the premises to the elder prisoner in the name of Morris Witkoski—he paid for the fixtures; I got no rent after 14th January; he stayed four or five weeks without paying his rent—it was a shop and a parlour.

Cross-examined. He said he took them for his son.

JOSEPH JOLLEY . I am collector to Mr. Beedham—I have been to 149, Back Church Lane occasionally—I have not seen the elder prisoner, only a man with one eye.

GEORGE PEARSON . I deal in cat's-meat at 150, Back Church Lane—I have seen the elder prisoner two or three times at 149, and have seen fish going backwards and forwards in dishes—I did not know his name, but letters used to come in the name of Morris.

Cross-examined. I saw a man with one eye about a week or a fortnight before the shop was closed.

THOMAS TICKNER . I live at 47, Green Hundred Road, Peckham, and let No, 55 to the younger prisoner in the name of William Henry Morris—he remained for five or six weeks—a one-eyed man used to come there for fish; I did not see the elder prisoner.

Cross-examined. I saw the elder prisoner once and saw a man with one eye several times, and another man.

FREDERICK ABBERLINE (Police Inspector). I took the elder prisoner at 1, Charlotte Road; his son had told me that he lived on the first floor front—I found there the two letters which have been spoken to—he asked me to let him look at the papers—I did so, and he said, "They belong to a lodger of mine"—I found at the same premises these thirty-eight labels, addressed "F. Anderson, Fish Merchant, Royal Mint Street Station, London," thirteen cards of "Wilcocks, Oil Merchants, 1, Charlotte Street," three cards of "Isaacs and Jacob, Fish Merchants, Royal Mint Station," and twelve billheads of "Jacobs, 29, Bath Street, Brick Lane."

Cross-examined. I was first at the police-court on 1st October, when the son was charged with forgery—I old not see the father there, but he may have been there; he was there on two or three occasions—a warrant was issued on the 23rd, and I went outside the court and found him—he said "I know nothing about it"—he was brought into court and put into the dock—a warrant was issued against the man with the one eye; he did not come to the court.

Re-examined, He is the elder prisoner's son; I have not been able to take him.

The prisoners received good characters.

MORRIS WITKOSKI— GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

MORRIS HENRY WITKOSKI— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Monday, November 24th, 1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18841117-56

56. ALFRED HICKSON (23), GEORGE BARNES (23), JAMES KEVILL (20), GEORGE FRANCIS (20), and CORNELIUS FITZGERALD (17) , Unlawfully assaulting William Kitch, a constable, in the execution of his duty. Second Count, assaulting William Kitch. And occasioning him actual bodily harm, and Other Counts charging similar assaults on Henry Ashwell.

WILLIAM KITCH (Policeman B 548). I have been four years and a half in the police—on Saturday night, about 11.30, I was on duty, in plain clothes, in York Street, Westminster, and was chatting with Mrs. Smith, the wife of a carman, living at 50, York Street, when I saw about fourteen or fifteen people coming along the street, pushing each other, and as I thought they looked disorderly I stepped aside towards the houses, with my back towards them, to let them pass—I was suddenly flung to the ground by some one from behind—it was so sudden I could recognise no one—I was then kicked from all directions—I then pulled myself up by Barnes's clothing and got on my knee—he punched my face with both his fists—while he was doing so I managed to get on my feet and got out my life preserver, which we are allowed to carry when on private duty for our protection—I struck several of them in self-defence, Barnes in particular—I don't say I struck Hickson—then I was over-powered and thrown a second time, and then they continued kicking me about the body and legs, and also my head—I saw Hickson after I was thrown the second time—I cannot say if he actually did anything to me—I did not see Kevill—Francis I saw, I am quite certain he was there—I cannot say what he did—I did not see Fitzgerald—there was great confusion—the skin was knocked off my kneecap—one eye was closed, and my body bruised—Sergeant Ashwell and a gentleman came up—they found I was bleeding—I was cut just over the eighth rib, I believe—it had cut through my clothes and stabbed me—I can't say who did it, nor when it was done—I was taken to the hospital—Dr. Waller attended me—pleurisy came on afterwards, the doctor told me—I am on the sick list now—my clothes were saturated with blood—I had seen Barnes repeatedly before in that neighbourhood—I cannot say I had seen any of the others before.

Cross-examined by Hickson. I saw you in the crowd around me—this first happened by Mrs. Smith's shop—I struck no one till I was thrown down—Mrs. McDowell did not ask me into her shop to sit down; she ran away—I did not see you strike me—I knew nothing of you before, and can't say you know me.

By theCOURT. I am nearly positive I saw Hickson in the crowd.

Cross-examined by Barnes. I can't say I saw you come along the street with the others—they were boys and men.

Cross-examined byMR. BEARD. I do not know that Kevill lives at Smith's place—that is near York Street—a crowd very quickly collects in such a neighbourhood under such circumstances.

Cross-examined by Francis. There were other people looking on—my eyes fell on you while I was struggling with the crowd—I remember you—I could recognise others—you are the only one I have seen up to now—I think you were not taken till the Monday—I was in the hospital.

By theCOURT. I only knew Barnes before; not the others—Mrs. McDowell lives in York Street—I was not in her premises that night—I was speaking to her previously—I don't know whether she saw this—I was having a commonplace conversation with her and Mrs. Smith—I was on duty patrolling that street in plain clothes for a special purpose.

out from seven others—Mr. Wyatt came to me at the hospital and gave his name and address to come here as a witness.

HENRY ASHWELL (Police Sergeant B). About 11.30 on Saturday night, 1st November, I was on duty in plain clothes going through York Street—I saw Kitch surrounded by a number of men stagger across the road and fall down—I immediately ran up to him; about ten or twelve people were round him kicking him—I pulled Barnes off—he was kicking Kitch about the body; I saw him kick him twice—when I had hold of Barnes he struck me on the mouth with his fist—I had a walking-stick with me, and I struck out right and left to drive them away—Kitch got up and then Barnes ran up to close with him again—I was attacked myself by the crowd—I saw Hickson there; I knew him by sight before; I saw him strike Kitch with his fist—Kitch fell down again and Hickson kicked him—I saw Kevill in the crowd, and saw him strike Kitch with his fist—I had seen him before in the street and know him by sight—I cannot say if Francis was there, and do not speak to Fitzgerald—there was great disorder—I was attacked; a stone was thrown at me—I succeeded in beating them off, and found Kitch was bleeding freely—Mr. O'Brien assisted me, and we got him to the Westminster Hospital in a cab and left him in charge of the surgeon there—I then went back to York Street; they were all gone then and the houses closed—I did not take anybody in custody that night—on Sunday night, the 2nd, about 10 o'clock, I went to the Adam and Eve public-house, where I saw Kevill—I said "I want you for being concerned in assaulting the constable last night"—he said "You have made a mistake, governor; you have got the wrong one"—I did not take the others—I knew Barnes, Kevill, and Hickson by sight before; I knew where Barnes lived, not the others—I am sure I saw Kevil engaged in it—others joined in the attack; there had been a friendly lead at the Black Horse, close by Mr. Smith's—I don't know who stabbed Kitch—after I came back from the hospital I saw Mr. Wyatt, who gave me his name and address; I had seen him before I went to the Hospital.

Cross-examined by Hickson. I saw you against this side of the Coach and Horses public-house—Kitch staggered across the road and fell down on the other side against the fish shop—I saw you kick him there—I saw you strike him about the centre of the road when he was coming back again—I can swear to you; I cannot swear to your clothes, I know your face.

Cross-examined by Barnes. You were not on the top of the constable when I came up—I pulled you off him—you kicked him when he was on the ground—after I got him up I saw he had his life-preserver in his hand.

Cross-examined byMR. BEARD. I know Kevill lives at Smith's Place, which leads into York Street and is near the Adam and Eve—I recognised Kevill after I got Kitch off the ground—I have said to-day all I said before the Magistrate—I said then that I should take him into custody for being concerned in the disturbance last night and assaulting the constable—I heard my deposition read over to me and signed it. (The words "assaulting the constable" did not appear in the deposition.) I said before the Magistrate "I saw Kevill striking at the constable"—there is a difference between striking at and striking the constable—I told the Magistrate when I was recalled on the 11th—on the 3rd I told

the Magistrate I saw Kevill strike at or strike the constable with his fist.

GEORGE ALFRED WYATT . I live at 10, Miles Lane, London Bridge, and am a commercial traveller—on 1st November, about 25 minutes to 12, I was walking down York Street, Westminster, and heard a number of young men making a noise—I stopped to speak to a tradesman there, and directly after, hearing a number of people making a noise, I saw Kitch in private clothes, without a hat and with his coat open, being hustled about by a number of them from one side of the road to the other, and then I saw him deliberately knocked down and kicked—he seemed to give no provocation to those people, but to be endeavouring to get away—when he got up he walked backwards a few steps and was surrounded again; the crowd appeared greatly augmented; one of them closed with him and appeared to be striking him with his fist; to the best of my belief that was Hickson—Sergeant Ashwell got him away then—just before he had. closed with him, after Kitch was knocked down the first time, he drew his life preserver—after Ashwell had come up I went up and spoke to these men, and then found they were police constables—Kitch seemed very much exhausted, and complained of a pain in his side; I removed his coat and saw a slit in his waistcoat; Ashwell tore his waistcoat open and there was a great deal of blood—I said "I think you are stabbed"—Ashwell took him to the hospital in a cab, which I found—the constables both behaved in a most forbearing manner in my opinion—I gave my name and address—I was not called to the police-court as I was away on my rounds travelling—I can only identify Hickson; I saw Barnes there, but I did not see him strike any blow—I should not like to say as to any of the others.

Cross-examined by Hickson. I cannot swear to you, but to the best of my belief it was you—you were on the opposite side of York Street, on the left-hand side, about half-way down—I can't say what shop you were outside; you were in the middle or on the kerb of the left-hand side—I can't say for certain if you were wearing the same clothes—to the best of my belief you are the party I saw strike the constable.

Cross-examined by Barnes. I did not say that Kitch was walking back-wards when Ashwell came up; I said he just recovered his feet, or was just getting to his feet, when Ashwell came up—he had got his life-preserver out when he recovered himself—Ashwell came up as he got up; it was simultaneous; it all happened within half a minute—I can't say if the constable got up without assistance—I cannot say if Ashwell picked him up.

Cross-examined by Francis. I cannot say if you were there.

Cross-examined by Fitsgerald. You were not there to my knowledge.

By Barnes. I remember you being there; I did not see you do anything.

JAMES SMITH . I live at 50, York Street, Westminster, with my wife—I am a master carman—on Saturday night, 1st November, between 11 and 12, I was sitting in my parlour with my door open—I heard a noise in the street of a gang of boys going along singing and shouting—shortly after I heard some row—I came out, and saw a gang of about twenty about ten doors from my shop, pitching into Kitch in the road—he was down, and he got up, and I walked down towards him—he walked into the middle of the road with another man—stones began to

be thrown in every direction, and came bang, bang against the shop-shutters—I recognise Hickson, Barnes, and Kevill—two men walked up the middle of the road, stones began to fly, and directly they got their feet on the pavement Barnes ran behind the policeman, and pulled him down from the back, with his head in the gutter; that was after what I first saw—then ten or twelve all set on him, knocking him about—I ran to his assistance, and got hold of a man and threw him on one side, and said "I never saw a more dirty, cowardly action in my life;" something like that—Kitch then got up with the other man's assistance, and the men ran towards James Street—I saw Kitch had his life-preserver after he got up, and I saw him make a hit twice, I think at Barnes—then I saw Hickson holding the life-preserver and trying to twist it out of Kitch's hands—directly the two men ran away a number of others followed for a short distance, about four doors from my place, and another constable came up—I should think it was necessary for Kitch to use his life-preserver, when he did so in self-defence with all these people—to the best of my belief Kevill is the man I pulled off Kitch—I should not like to swear to it—I am sure he was there; directly after the men ran away he was at my side—I know nothing of Francis or Fitzgerald—Barnes lives four doors from me in the same street—I knew Hickson before by sight; he lives in Caxton Street, close by—I knew Kevill by sight, and that he lived in York Street somewhere—my wife is outside—Ashwell was the second man I saw.

Cross-examined by Hickson. Kitch was getting on his feet when I saw you trying to twist the life-preserver out of his hand—he was not fairly up, but ought to have been up enough to recognise you—I can't swear you struck him—I did not see you kick him or throw him down—all I saw you do was to try to get the life-preserver away—that was outside Bowdley's boot shop, four doors from my place—I am sure I saw you.

Cross-examined by Barnes. I think I am sure I saw you pull the constable down with his head in the gutter—you were about six yards in advance of me then—I saw him strike at you twice with his life-preserver—I did not see him strike at you before you pulled him over; I only saw the last attack.

Cross-examined byMR. BEARD. I was before the Magistrate on both occasions—I did not tell him all exactly as I have to-day—I did not say before the Magistrate I believed it was Kevill I pulled off Kitch—I said "I saw Kevill in the crowd; I won't swear he did anything," and "I saw Kevill after the constable got up"—I did not see Francis or Fitzgerald there.

Re-examined. There were 10 or 12 altogether—there was confusion and noise—I did not see the first commencement; it was the last attack I saw.

EMILY SMITH . I am the last witness's wife, and live at 50, York Street—on this Saturday, between 11 and 12, I was outside Mrs. McDowell's shop, talking to her and the detective, and saw a lot of boys between 16 and 18 singing and making a good deal of noise—the detective made way to let them pass, moving into a doorway, and went in between the two rows to make them be quiet—the boys turned round—Francis had a bag with something in it (he came and asked me for the bag afterwards), and they made a circle round, and another boy, Patsey Hurley and Francis, got the bag between them, over their shoulders, and

knocked the constable over the head—they got him down on his back in the middle of the road, and commenced kicking him—I could not say whether they were all together, as it was rather dark, and I was rather frightened—he remained for some time on his back and then tried to raise himself—I said "Try and get up," and then I think he produced his life-preserver and waved it about—he had no chance of doing anything with it—a lot more men then came up; I could not discern who—they were kneeling on his chest, and said "Oh, look what the b——has got!"—I went and fetched my husband, and after a few minutes came out and saw Barnes with a crowd of men confused one with another—I identify nobody else—I said to Barnes "What a shame it was for all these roughs to come and ill-use that man when he was not saying an ill-word to any one"—Barnes came on the pavement and said "Was I one of those roughs?" and made a gesture—he had his fist clenched—I said "I did not say you were"—I picked up this bag (produced) and gave it to the inspector the same night—it is a sack—I saw nothing inside it—it wag a very hard blow—I am certain something was inside it when he was struck, by the noise—it was not a noise that the canvas could make of itself.

Cross-examined by Hickson. I did not notice you there—the row began a few yards from the Black Horse, on the same side of the way.

Cross-examined by Barnes. I did not recognise you with them when they first came along the street—the boys were older than I took them to be at the time—I saw the boys whirl the constable round—he made a slip and came down on his back, and I saw the boys round him—I did not see him get on his feet—he got his preserver and waved it, and then the rush came, and I was so frightened I ran across and fetched my husband—I did not see you till it was all over—I could not discern the men kneeling on his chest as they had their hats over their eyes, and were leaning over—I do not recognise you as being there then.

Cross-examined by Francis. The constable was talking to me and Mrs. McDowell, and he plaoed me where he did to avoid the rough Usage, and said, "Go along quietly, boys"—you were walking four or five abreast, and taking up the whole pavement, and he made a parting through between the two rows of boys with his arms, and you turned round all at once—you were next to Patsey Hurley, you had the bag over your shoulder and he had half over his, and I saw it flicking about—I don't know whether you or Hurley struck the constable with it, you two had the bag and were swinging it across the constable—I recognised you when you came and asked if I had the bag—one of you was trying to get it away from the other—Patsey had been to what they call tattooing, and I recognised him—when you were placed with 3 or 6 men I eaid I did know you, and you said "Yes, I did come to you and ask you for the bag, Mrs. Smith"—I looked down, and then recognised you directly—I did not notice you so much as Patsey Hurley, because I knew him and had never seen you before—I said I did not know the other boy, but I knew your face directly I saw you in the yard, and I picked you out and said, "That is the boy that came and asked me for the bag, he was in the front row with Patsey Hurley."

By theCOURT. I did not say at the Court below about the boy coming and asking for the bag.

Re-examined. There was only one bag—Hurley I knew before—I am quite sure Francis is the boy that came and asked me for the bag afterwards—I picked him out at Rochester Row—I am quite sure of Hurley, because he worked for us; he has gone away and not been taken—I am quite sure Francis was the boy with Hurley when they used the bag—I can't say who used it.

CHARLOTTE TRIPP . I live at 29, York Street, Westminster—on this Saturday night, 1st November, between 11 and 12, I was passing in York Street, and saw Kitch there—when I first saw him, several boys and men were kicking him just outside a public-house—I only recognise Fitzgerald—I knew him well before by sight, we call him Fitz—there was a good deal of noise and confusion.

Cross-examined by Hickson. I did not see you there.

Cross-examined by Barnes. I thought at first it was a boy they were kicking—I saw them kicking something in the road—I did not see you there—I know you well enough.

Cross-examined by Fitzgerald. When I saw you kicking the constable you were just outside that carriage place; opposite Wyatt's, where he keeps a lot of carriages—I think you were kicking his head, I won't be certain—I saw a lot of them, but you are the only one I noticed, because I saw you when standing outside father's shop.

DANIEL O'BRIEN . I am a butler of 180, Vauxhall Bridge Road—on this Saturday, about 11 o'clock, I was in James Street, going towards York Street, followed by Ashwell—in York Street I saw a gang of thirty or forty from fourteen to twenty years of age, I should think, singing going along in front of me—I saw Kitch move to the side of the pavement, they surrounded him, and he fell; he raised himself again and went more in the centre of the road, and after he had raised himself a second time he formed quite a circle, I think with the life-preserver he was using; they got at him again and he fell on the opposite side of the road—I was quite close to him, and then I thought it advisable to go and call the policeman that I knew was at the corner, the constable that followed me had not got up—at the corner the policeman did not care about coming up, so I returned again, and when I came up Ashwell was there, he walked over quite close to me—Kitch was down in the channel of the kerb stone, and they were still beating and kicking him—one of them came out of the crowd about three yards off, and passed quite close to me, and Ashwell raised his stick and hit him on the knee, and he fell—I could not recognise any of them, I was in too great a fuss, I would not like to swear to any of them.

JOHN FRASER (Inpector B). On Sunday, about 10 minutes to 1, in consequence of what I heard, I went to 44, York Street, with Brown—I found Barnes lived there; he was standing in the doorway—Brown told him he should take him into custody for being concerned with others in stabbing a constable—he came outside with us and said "I am not the man who stabbed him"—he said nothing more at this time; he was sent to the station with a uniform man—we then went to 26, Caxton Street, not two or three seconds' walk from York Street—the front door was open—I walked in—the parlour door was shut—hearing loud voices I remained in the passage—I afterwards found it was Hickson and his father who had been holding the conversation—the father said "You must have been a b——fool to go back again"—Hickson said "When I

first put my hand on it I thought it was a revolver, but it was only a staff"—I then entered the room and found Hickson and his father and mother there—I told Hickson I should take him into custody for being concerned with others in stabbing a constable—I took hold of his arm; he said" Leave go, I will go with you"—he went quietly with me to the station—Mrs. Smith handed me this bag containing this book—at 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Monday, the 3rd, I went to 74, Jermyn Street, Mr. White's, a hatter's shop, where I saw Francis, who was employed there as a porter—I went to see whose bag it was—I made this statement of what was said within half an hour—Mr. Russell, the manager, was there—I said "Where is the book and bag that you had on Saturday night?"—he said "I got into a row and it was taken from my back"—I said "You will have to go to the station to be identified"—Mr. Russell said "I did not know the book and bag were missing"—on the way to the station through St. James's Park Francis said "I will tell you the truth; I had a lot of hats to deliver round Kensington way, and the last was at Palace Street; I called there and the people were out; I sent Fitz," that is short for Fitzgerald, "with the hat about 11; we were together all the time; we had been to tattoo," there is a regimental tattoo at 10 p.m. at Birdcage Walk, "and we were coming down York Street together, about nine or ten of us; I don't know anything about the stabbing; I did not stop to be knocked about"—as we passed Smith's Rents ten or eleven boys were standing there, and I saw Fitzgerald with them—Francis turned half round to him and addressed him as "Con"—his name is Cornelius—I took Fitzgerald to the station as well, telling him he would have to go to be identified on a charge of being concerned in stabbing a constable—he said "I don't know anything about it; I left him," turning to Francis, "at the Crown before that"—the Crown is a public-house in York Street—they were placed with several others at the station, and some of the witnesses had the opportunity of seeing them—when the bag was given to me it had this book in it with the prisoner's name in it—I heard Mr. Wyatt give his name and address—I could not find him to give evidence before the Magistrate; he was away on his travels—I have tried to find Hurley and Stephen Sullivan, and cannot—they have left the neighbourhood—inquiries were made at Harrison's for Sullivan on the Monday after the assault.

DANIEL BROWN (Detective B). I was at the station when Barnes was charged with this offence; after the charge had been read to him he said "I own being there and striking the constable several times, but I am not the man who stabbed him"—I searched him.

CHARLES WALLER . I am house surgeon at the Westminster Hospital—on this Saturday, about a quarter to 12, Kitch was brought there; he appeared to be in a weak state, exhausted—I found he had a clean cut wound about three-quarters of an inch long and half an inch deep on the left side just below the eighth rib—it might have been inflicted by a knife, which had gone through his clothes—he had lost a good deal of blood—I dressed the wound—I thought at the time it was a dangerous wound—I think the knife or instrument must have struck against the rib; it is near the lungs—he had a bruise on one eye and his face was much bruised; his left side was bruised all round, as though from a fist or boot; the bruises on the body might have been inflicted by kicks—he remained in the hospital till midday Monday—the divisional

surgeon saw him afterwards—his body was bruised not only round the wound, but all round that side—he was bruised in the face; his eye struck me most.

GEORGE PEARCE . I am a divisional surgeon—Kitch was under my care from the Tuesday—he has been off duty ever since—he suffered from pleurisy for three days—he has quite recovered now—the wound has healed; that was the chief injury—that and some external violence caused the pleurisy—the wound contributed to the pleurisy I think.

The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Hickson says: "I am innocent." Barnes: "I admit I was there, and was in the row. I know nothing about the knife. I am innocent of any stab." Kevill: "I was not there until the row was all over." Francis: "I was coming up the street. I saw there was a row going to occur, so I went out of the street. I did not see who the row was between, only a chap, Patsey Hurley and the constable." Fitzgerald: "I could pick out the boy who used the knife. His name is Stephen Sullivan. He lives in a little court turning down by the Horseshoe. There are wood-choppers in the court where he lives. He works at Harrison's, St. Martin's Lane. He came up to me on Saturday night and showed me a knife, a black-handled knife. He said 'I have been and stabbed some one.' I said 'Who was it?' He said 'I think that there man standing there.' I said 'What man?' He said that man that Patsey Hurley set up to. I lifted up the knife and stabbed it downwards. What shall I do with the knife?' I said 'You can do what you like with it.' While waiting together there was a rush behind us, something holloaing 'Look out, there is a policeman; so we went down Smith's Rents."

Hickson and Francis received good characters.

Hickson's Defence. On this night I was in a public-house, and when I came outside saw a man cut a child down with a walking-stick. I picked the child up, and went into the Black Horse again, and then home. Came out again, saw a crowd, and went to see what the matter was, and then went back to the Black Horse, and afterwards home, and I was merely repeating to my father when overheard by the constable a statement made to me by another man.

Barnes stated that seeing a crowd he pushed his way through it, that the constable struck him with a life-preserver, and that then he struck the constable and then left.

Francis stated that after he had delivered the hats with Fitzgerald's assistance, he was coming with five others up York Street, singing; that Sullivan had the bag; that he saw the constable strike Patsey Hurley and make his nose bleed, and that he then ran away; that he afterwards asked Sullivan for the bag, and went back to inquire for it. He denied that Mrs. Smith had picked him out at the police-court, and asserted that he was only identified through the bag.

Fitzgerald stated that after delivering the hats, and giving Francis back the bag, he went down Palace Street, and was going to Smith's Rents, when lie heard a row, and went to see what it was, and walked away when he saw Sullivan, with whom he had the conversation he had detailed in his statement before the Magistrate.

JAMES SMITH (Re-examined). I did Say at the police-court I pulled off Kevill (The witness's deposition was "I pulled one man off, I could not say

which.") The Magistrate was too quick for me, and began something else, and that was the reason I did not tell him—I had to check him twice—I did not say which at the time—I say today I believe it was Kevill, or why should he have been close to me afterwards?

HICKSON— GUILTY — Four Months Hard Labour.

BARNES— GUILTY *— Twelve Month's Hard Labour.

KEVILL, FRANCIS, and FITZGERALD— NOT GUILTY .

There was another indictment against the prisoners for unlawfully wounding Kitch, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, on which MR. POLAND offered no evidence against Kevill, Francis, and Fitzgerald.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18841117-57

57. HENRY ALEY was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury committed at Bow County Court.

MR. ISAACSONProsecuted; MR. BLACKWELLDefended.

ABRAHAM ANIDJAH . I am a chiropodist, and live at 4, Kennington Lane—Jane Angrave, the prosecutrix in this case, makes an article, and I sell it—on 27th February I called on the prisoner at 14, Rathbone Street, Barking Road, Canning Town, to sell him some corn salve on cards, at 3d.—I sold him one gross on three cards of four dozen each for 15s.—here is my book with the entry—I made out this, and he signed it (Bought of J. Angrave, one gross corn salve, 15s. Terms three months' credit, not on appro. H. Aley)—in consequence of what subsequently transpired I proceeded against the defendant in the County Court for that 15s.—at my suggestion there he was asked to write his name—this is what he then wrote—I called his honour's attention to how long he was writing it, and said "Your honour will notice how long the man is forming his letters; I have not the slightest doubt he is intending to disguise his signature"—the prisoner was sworn at the County Court, and swore three or four times on two different days that the signature at the foot of the invoice was not his—that was the 8th August and 3rd October, in the same suit at Bow County Court—in consequence of his having committed that perjury I brought him before a Magistrate with a view of committing him to these Sessions—the Magistrate refused to commit because my witnesses were not there—this matter has stopped my business.

Cross-examined. I live at 4, Lower Kennington Lane—the goods are manufactured there by Miss Angrave—I take them out and sell them—I am the occupier of the rooms at that address—Miss Angrave is not the occupier of the rooms where the corn salve is made—she does not rent them—it is not my business whether she rents any rooms there; there are four tenants in the house—I don't know what she pays for—she was at the County Court, but knew nothing about this matter—she did not see the goods sold—she gave no evidence—she was the plaintiff, I sued by her desire—I am part owner of the goods—the judgment of the Court went against me—Miss Angrave was ordered to pay the costs—when execution was put in a warrant was returned that the goods were mine—I decline to say if, that has happened before—I have not before this brought actions in the County Court in the name of Miss Angrave, and when the Judge has misbelieved my statement and execution has been issued the business has not been found to be carried on in my name—I sued Fain for money he owed me—he got the verdict.

Q. Was an execution put in for costs at the place where the business was carried on,

and was it returned that the place was not yours. A. There was a bill of sale on them—the County Court Judge adjourned the case for me to prosecute the witness for perjury if I wished to do so—I did not do so, because I had no means—before the verdict went against me on the second hearing I talked of prosecuting—on the second day before the Magistrate my witnesses did not come, and the Magistrate dismissed the case because of that—the Magistrate did not say the two H. Aley's, one at the top and the other at the bottom, on the invoice, were written by the same hand, by me; some one else said so, not the Magistrate—I wrote everything on this notice to the defendant to be at this Court as I was going to prosecute—when I went on 27th February I think a boy was in the shop besides Mr. Aley for a little while—I would not swear he was not there all the time—I don't take out summonses in my name because of the trade list; the goods are part hers and part mine.

Re-examined. I am junior partner; Angrave manufactures and I sell—I act as her agent in every respect—I did not take out a summons for perjury against the prisoner in the first instance because I had no means and because I thought he would pay in the interval if I left it over the five or six weeks of the long vacation—I felt bound to prosecute him here after he had written his name as he did on the back of the Judge's list, to save my reputation—as an honest man I was forced to do it.

JOHN CONSTABLE . I am usher at the Bow County Court—this is the original summons in this case from Bow County Court; the case was adjourned once or twice—on 3rd October I swore the prisoner in the case of Angrave v. Aley—I heard him swear that the signature on the invoice was not his—he wrote his name on the back of the Judge's list when the Judge asked him to, professing it to be his ordinary signature—this is it.

JAMES DUNSBY . I live at 50, Broadway, Barking, and am a tripe dresser—that is four miles from the prisoner—I produce this petition signed by the neighbours, with H. Aley's signature to it—I called on him to obtain his signature and he wrote it in my presence—I swear this is his.

Cross-examined. That was about six months' back, I suppose—nobody else was present when he wrote it but myself—before this case was heard before the Magistrate the prisoner came to me and asked me whether I had got up such a petition, and whether I took it to this prisoner Aley—I did not appear at the police-court; I lost the train.

DARRIN HEARD . I am deputy superintendent of the district of Romford, and live at North Street, Romford—I produce the original marriage notice book, the banns, from 1875 to 1877—a notice is given by Henry Walter James Aley; he had to sign this book—I saw a person representing himself to be Aley sign it.

ByMR. BLACKWELL. I do not identify the prisoner; he is not within my recollection.

By theJURY. The date is 24th December, 1877.

JOHN BISSEL . I am deputy registrar for Barking, where I live—I produce the registry book of marriages—I cannot say I know the prisoner—I believe he knows me.

Mr. Isaacson applied for an adjournment of the case that Mr. Wilding might attend and prove the prisoner's signature. TheCOURTwould not

permit this, and instructed the Jury that the only documents before them to compare with the alleged signature to the invoice were the signature made before the County Court Judge and that to the petition.

The prisoner at the Jury's request wrote his name on a sheet of paper.

Witnesses for the Defence.

WILLIAM HOSKINS . I am the prisoner's apprentice—I was present the whole of the time in the shop on 27th February when Mr. Anidjah came with the corn salve—I saw no paper signed; the first time I saw this (The invoice) was in Bow County Court—it would not be possible for my master to sign this document without my seeing it done—all I saw was a pocket-book something like that—I did not see the prosecutor make a note in it; all he did was to open it and show the prisoner different orders he had got and money he had received—I gave evidence at Bow County Court for the defendant—I have not seen my master write and cannot say if this is his writing—Mrs. Aley generally writes all the letters—this is a hairdresser's—I heard the Magistrate say he thought the person who wrote the top wrote the lower part too, and he dismissed the summons.

Cross-examined. I saw paper in the pocket-book when it was opened—I did nothing while Mr. Anidjah was in the shop; no one came in—I was leaning against one of the benches about two yards from Mr. Aley—he was in front of me with his back to me, and Mr. Anidjah was facing Mr. Aley—I could see exactly what they were doing—a transaction could not have taken place of which I was not cognisant—I could see Mr. Aley's hands because he was not exactly in front of me—I could see both of them and both their hands—I am sure Mr. Anidjah made no entry at the time.

The prisoner received a good character.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, November 25th, 1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18841117-58

58. JOSEPH PIERCE (19) PLEADED GUILTY to four indictments for stealing horses and carts of various persons.

Reference Number: t18841117-59

59. JOSEPH PIERCE was again indicted, with HENRY MALIN and THOMAS MALIN , for stealing a mare, cart and harness, the property of John Bloxham, to which

PIERCE PLEADED GUILTY .

MESSERS. POLANDandGOODRICHProsecuted; MR. PURCELLDefended.

SARAH BLOXHAM . I am the wife of John Bloxham, of 45, The Maze, Shoreditch—he lets out horses and carts—on 19th September Pierce came and asked me to let him have a horse and cart for two hours to take some work home—I let him have them—he gave me this card (Of a Venetian blind maker, London Fields)—they were worth 25l.—I never saw him again till he was in custody—I knew him before, he had come to me three weeks previously.

Cross-examined. He did not hire a horse then—he said he would come back in half an hour, but he did not—he appeared like an honest person requiring a horse and cart—Mr. Taylor is my partner—I have experience, having let out horses and carts for about 18 months—I had had the horse about two years.

about 8 p.m., Pierce came there with a grey mare in a cart which he left with me till next morning, and asked me to give the mare a feed of corn—he came next morning between 7 and 8 and took them away.

Cross-examined. The mare had a scar on the off side—she was worth 12l. or 14l., as near as I could judge.

ALFRED LANGFORD . I am a coke contractor of 4, Garrett Street, Plum-stead—I have known the two Malins between seven and eight years—they are general dealers, ready to buy anything they can get cheap—the father lives in Beresford Street, the back entrance is in Ropeyard Rails—it is a private house—I don't know where the son lives—on Saturday morning, 20th September, I was in Ropeyard Rails delivering some coke, and saw Pierce come out of a house three or four doors from Malin's place—he came across and asked me if I would buy a horse—I said "How big is it?"—he said "As big as the horse you have got in your van"—he went away, and in about half an hour came back with a grey mare without harness, but with a halter on—Malin and his son came out of their premises at the same time with a pony in a barrow, and the man who had the horse gave it into Malin's hands, and the son ran the horse up, and Pierce took my whip to touch him up, and when the horse was running up a second time I stopped him—Pierce asked if I would give 7l. for it—I said "I do not thick she is worth that," and asked if he would let me try her with a load of coke, and, if she could not pull that I would give him 4l. for her—he said that he had bought her cheap, and had no further use for her, and I should have her—he told me to tie her behind my van and work her till night, and if she suited me I was to come down and pay him 4l. for her—I tied her behind my van, and then went into a house with a sack of coke, leaving the three prisoners talking together—as I came out I saw the elder Malin and Pierce nearly at the bottom of the street—they had not taken the mare away—they turned in the direction of the London Road—I went across the road to Mr. Malin's son, and he and another man were harnessing the horse in a barrow—I said "This is a clever trick"—he said "It is nothing when you are used to it"—I said "I am not used to it"—the son then got up and drove away in the barrow with the mare—they had taken the pony which was in the barrow into their yard—I saw nothing more of the mare—I had not paid for her.

Cross-examined. I had not got the money to pay at that moment—the two Malins came out when Pierce came to my man with the horse—the result was that Pierce did not stick to his bargain with me, but was making a bargain with Malin—there was no harness—I am well known in Woolwich.

BENJAMIN JAMES COMYNS . I live at 23, Church Street, Greenwich—I know the two Malins—on 22nd September, about 8 p.m., Henry Malin came to my shop driving a grey mare which he offered for sale—he called again later in the day, and offered it to me for 6l. 10s.—I tried it, and bought it—he gave me this receipt (produced)—that is in my writing, and he put his cross on the stamp—Taylor saw the mare on 20th October, and I went with him to Henry Malin's and told him that I had heard the horse was stolen, and that I had come to see him about getting the money back—he said that he could not settle anything then; he had bought it of a man.

know much of horses—I have kept one for about two years—I have known Malin quite two years—he bears the character of a straight-forward, honest man—the receipt is witnessed by Walter Comyns; that is my brother—the sale took place in his presence—I tried to make terms with Malin when I found I could not get the money—he said that he got the mare from a man who was in custody, and who lived two or three doors from him—he did not tell me that Pierce had sold it to him—I did not buy the harness.

WILLIAM TAYLOR . I am in partnership with Mr. Bloxham at Chestnut Grove, Tottenham—this mare, cart, and harness were my property—I saw them in Comyns's possession at Greenwich on October 20th—I had got my cart back on the 17th—I afterwards saw the harness at the elder Malin's back yard in Beresford Street; that is a private house—I afterwards saw Thomas Malin there with his father, and asked the father if he was going to give up the harness—he said "Yes," that he bought it off a young man two doors off, he did not say who—I value the harness at 1l. 10s. or 2l., and the mare at about 15l.—I had had her about eight months; I gave 8l. for her—I used to let her out on hire; she could draw a light cart.

Cross-examined. She could draw two tons—I received a telegram from Greenwich Police-station, and met Malin outside his door, and Mr. Comyns spoke to him—he said he wanted 2l. of me and 2l. of Comyns, to divide the loss between us—I had been down and owned the mare—I did not ask him any questions—Detective Morgan went in with me and found the harness hanging there; that was the same night that we talked about the 2l.—I said to the elder Malin, "You have got my harness here, and I want to take it back"—he said, "You can't take it away"—I said, "All right, keep it, you have got to produce it at the police-court"—the mare was very poor when I bought her, but she improved by feeding, and I was offered 15 guineas for her—I should say she is just over five years old.

Re-examined. The offer of 15l. was made to my father; that was just before the Derby day.

JOHN BLOXHAM . I am in partnership with Mr. Taylor—I have been offered 15l. for this grey mare, and refused to take it—she is coming six years—I bought her under the hammer for 8l.—the harness is worth 2l.

Cross-examined. It is my mistress's mistake that I bought the mare 18 months ago, that was another horse—I flatter myself that I know as much about horses as most people—the harness was not new—I bought it for the mare.

HARRIET GOODY . I live at 65, Beresford Street, Woolwich—on 19th September Pierce lodged in my back parlour; it was furnished; he paid 5s. a week; it is a private house—he is an engine cleaner—he dressed like a workman, and went out at workman's hours.

Cross-examined. He came on 19th September—I had never seen him before—he stopped a month—I never saw either of the Malins there.

Re-examined. There is a back entrance to my house from Ropeyard Rails—he remained with his wife in my house till he was taken into custody.

JOSEPH PIERCE (The Prisoner). I have pleaded guilty to this charge—I hired this grey mare and cart from Mrs. Bloxham on 19th September, took them to Mr. Radley, and put them up for a night—on the same

afternoon that I went to Mr. Radley I got the mare and harness and drove it down to Woolwich, and took lodgings at Mrs. Goody's—up to that time I knew nothing of the Malins, but from something that was said to me I went to find them, and on the Monday morning I saw the elder Malin, and on the Tuesday I sold the horse to him for 3l. and the harness for 5s.—I also offered to sell her on the Tuesday to Mr. Langford for 4l.—I gave Malin a receipt for the money—he did not ask me where I got it from, but the elder prisoner did afterwards, and I said I had got another and did not want this one—before taking these lodgings I lived at Seven Sisters Road, Hollo way—no one was with Malin when he bought the mare of me—I know a man named Coates; he is an engine cleaner.

Cross-examined. I first offered the mare to Langford, and he was to pay me the 4l. that night if he was satisfied with her—the two Malins brought him to me—Coates was not with Malin; he did not offer me 2l. for her—I did not know Coates's name: I called him the "Coke dealer"—I said to the inspector "Mr. Malin's son came and knocked at my gate, and a man named Cokey offered me 4l., and Mr. Malin said he would give me 3l., and I took the 3l. from Mr. Malin because Cokey was not going to give me the money then"—Malin was ready with cash down—if Cokey had had the money I should have sold her to him—I had never seen the Malins before.

Re-examined. Malin was going to show me some stables, and he wanted to know if I could get any more horses—this is the receipt—the harness was not on the mare; that was sold separately—I had no receipt for the harness.

ByMR. PURCELL. I said to the Inspector, "When I got to Deptford with the grey mare I saw a man selling apples, who I should know again, and he said Mr. Malin would buy the harness; that is how I first went to him; I had not known him until then"—the man with the apples was a stranger.

WILLIAM MORGAN (Police Sergeant R). I took Pierce on 17th October, and took him to Woolwich police-court, about twenty minutes to nine o'clock, and found Henry Malin detained there—I said "I am informed by the inspector on duty, Mr. Webber, that two ponies and a cart have been identified to-day which you, bought from a man"—I was then directed to go with Malin, who said he would stop up all night to find the man—he afterwards asked me if Pierce had any more horses—I said I did not know, and asked him why; he said, "I bought one grey mare of him and harness, and a big bay horse and harness—I said "What has become of them"—he said "I sold the grey mare to Mr. Comyns, of Greenwich, for 6l. 10s.; the harness I have at home; the bay horse I sold on the road to Croydon Fair; I don't know the name, but the harness I sold to John Self;" that was the harness for the big horse—he was removed to Worship Street, as the articles were stolen in that neighbourhood—Thomas Malin was in custoday on another charge—he brought the harness of the grey mare to Worship Street before he was taken into custody—I directed him to do that—he also brought the harness for the big horse that has been returned by Mr. Self's order—Pierce lodged two doors from Henry Malin; they are two-storey houses, but Malin's is double-fronted, and rather a large house—it has a stable in the back yard.

Cross-examined. I know the Malins; they are well known in the neighbourhood, and have never been in trouble to my knowledge—I have always known them as hard-working men—Malin said he bought the pony and cart of a man who lived next door, and his son was in custody for having a pony which he had bought of the same man—the son was in custody when the father came to our station and communicated with the police—I did not then apprehend Henry Malin—he told me he bought the grey mare and two ponies and a big horse all together, and three sets of harness and a cart—until he told me that my attention had not been directed to them.

JOHN WEBBER (Police Inspector R). Cross-examined byMR. PURCELL. On 17th October a man named Belham and Henry Malin came to the station—Belham said that he had bought a pony and cart of Malin—I said to Malin "Where did you get the pony and cart from?"—he said that he bought it of a man who lived a door or two from him in the same street—Malin remained there till nine—he said they had come there at his suggestion, and he was willing to do anything he could to find the man, he also expected to see the man that evening about some boots.

The Malins received good characters.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18841117-60

60. JOSEPH PIERCE, HENRY MALIN , and THOMAS MALIN were again indicted for stealing a gelding, rug, and a set of harness, the property of William Hewitson, to which

PIERCE PLEADED GUILTY .

MESSRS. POLANDandGOODRICHProsecuted; MR. PURCELLDefended.

WILLIAM HEWITSON . I am a greengrocer, of 123, Bullen Road, Kingsland—on 26th September Pierce hired a brown horse and harness, horse cloth, whip, and waggonette of me, value 23l.—he said he would return them in four or five hours—he was to pay me 10s. for the hour—I never saw him again till he was in custody—I found the waggonette at Mr. Owen's in Woolwich, the harness at the station, and the rug at a pawn-broker's.

Cross-examined. I had had the horse about two years—I had never seen Pierce before—I gave 13 guineas for the horse, and the waggonette, whip, and rug were worth 17l.

JOSEPH PIERCE (The Prisoner). On 19th September I went to live at 65, Beresford Street, Woolwich—when I sold the grey mare to the elder Malin on 23rd September he said if I could get other horses he would buy them, and on 26th September I went to Mr. Hewitson and hired a horse, a waggonette, a whip, and a rug, and sold the horse and harness to the prisoner on the following Tuesday—they had been in the mean-time at the Lord Eaglan public-house, Woolwich—I spoke to Thomas Malin first about buying them, and he gave me 5s. on account; the price of the horse and harness was to be 3l. 10s.—Henry Malin paid me the rest in the afternoon in the stable—neither of them asked where I got it from, and I did not tell them—it was a light brown horse—they saw it before purchasing it, but it was not trotted up and down—I pawned the rug for 5s., and sold the waggonette at a sale on the 30th.

Cross-examined. On the night before I was taken Malin said that he wanted two more horses; that was the second time he asked me—I was in a public-house, and he told me if I could get two tall horses he could do with them, and I told him where I could get two, and I mentioned

that at the police-station the night I was locked up, but I did not tell the inspector that he asked me for more horses on the day I sold the grey mare—this is the first time I have suggested that—I did not tell either of them where I got the horses, or that my father had been a horse-dealer and had died and had left my brother 400l., and that my brother had sent the things to me to make what I could of them—I was charged here in July, 1883, with stealing a sewing-machine, and got twelve months; I came out in July, 1884—I was charged once before that with robbing my landlady; that was before the Magistrate at Stratford—I got six months and pleaded guilty, but the police officer did not give me a bad character—I was in respectable work before I got the six months—I was with a plumber and painter in the Seven Sisters' Road for three months—I did not leave him to better myself; I was locked up—before that I worked with my father—he is alive.

JOHN SELF . I live at 31, Ropeyard Rails, Woolwich—I know the Malins—I bought some harness of the elder Malin for 1l.—when I heard it was stolen I took it back to him—there was no receipt—it was about three weeks ago; I have nothing to fix the date—he did not tell me how he got it—I had not bought harness of him before—I have known him as a dealer in horses twelve years.

Re-examined. I looked upon him as a respectable man, and thought I was giving a fair price—he asked 30s., and I gave him 1l.

JOHN WILDER . I live at Woolwich, and am manager to Mr. Mills, an auctioneer—on 3rd September Pierce and a man not in custody came to me and entered a waggonette in a sale unreserved, and it was sold for 4l.

Cross-examined. I should have asked him where he got it, but I took him for another man, the son of a respectable tradesman at Plumstead.

ALFRED CLOAK . I am in the service of Mr. Thorpe, a pawnbroker, of Woolwich—this rug was pawned with me for 5s. on 13th October by the prisoner Pierce—I asked if it belonged to him, he said "Yes," I said "Have you any horses?" he said "I have two."

Cross-examined. I have known the Malins very well for three or four years, and have never heard anything against them.

WILLIAM MORGAN (Police Sergeant). On 17th October, when Pierce was in custody, I saw Henry Malin outside the station and asked him whether he knew anything of any other horses; he said, "Has he had any more?" I said, "I can't say, why?" he said, "Because I bought the grey mare and harness of him, and a big bay horse and harness; the grey mare I sold to Mr. Comyns, of Church Street, Greenwich; the harness I have at home; the bay horse I sold on the way to Croydon Fair, at a public-house about a mile from the fair"—he did not say when or what he got for it, he said that he sold the harness to John Self, at Rope Yard Rails, for 1l.—Pierce brought them to the station next day, and on that day I saw Malin, who said Pierce told him his father had been a horse dealer, and he died and left him and his brother 400l. each, that his brother was sending these things down to Woolwich to him to make the most he could of them, and that he believed that statement was true—I have never been able to trace the big horse, but the harness was produced by Henry Malin and the police took charge of it.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18841117-61

61. JOSEPH PIERCE, HENRY MALIN , and THOMAS MALIN were again indicted for stealing a mare, cart, set of harness, whip, rug, and nosebag, the property of James Rider, to which

JAMES RIDER . I live at 1, White Post Lane, Hackney, and am a greengrocer—on Friday, 3rd October, Pierce came and hired a black pony, cart, set of harness, rug, whip, and nosebag, between half-past 3 and 4—he said he would be back about 8 or 9—he paid 6s. for the hire—he never came back with my property—on 17th October I was taken by the police to see Mr. Belham, of Seymour Street, Battersea—he had got my pony, cart, and harness, but not the cloth, whip, or nosebag—the value of pony, cart, and harness was 20l.; the whip, 2s. 6d.; rug, 10s. 6d., and 2s. 6d. the nosebag—the next day I saw Pierce and Henry Malin at Woolwich Police-court—I asked him how much he gave for my lot, for the pony, cart, and harness—he said 5l. 10s.—I said, "You would like to buy another lot like that at the same price"—I saw the rug at the police-station.

Cross-examined. I had not known Pierce before—I had had the pony three years, I did not work it a good bit, I did not let it eat its head off—I bought the pony and trap for 15l. three years ago—I gave 3l. 15s. for the harness at the beginning of this summer, and laid out 5l. 10s. for having the trap done up—the trap had "J. Eider, 1, White Post Lane, Hackney," on the shaft.

JOSEPH PIERCE (In custody). The evidence I gave before is true—on Friday, 3rd October, I went to Mr. Rider's, and hired the black pony, cart, harness, and other things—I took them away and never returned them—I drove them to Woolwich, and kept them in the stables at the public-house—two or three days afterwards I sold the pony to Thomas Malin for 3l. 10s., at the back of where I was living—I had got the pony outside the gate with the cart and harness all together, but I only then sold the pony for the 3l. 10s.; the next day I sold the cart and harness to Henry Malin for 2l.—they took the pony away the same night, and the next night Henry Malin bought the cart and harness—there was no bill or receipt or anything, they did not ask me where I got it from, I did not tell them—I did not say my father had died and left me 400l., and that I was selling these for my brother the best way I could—on 13th October I pawned this rug, and the one in the other case, with Mr. Cloak, a pawnbroker, for 5s.—the prisoners had the whip, and I left the nosebag in the stable—I noticed Mr. Rider's name on the cart, and put grease over it after I got it to the stable at the public-house.

Cross-examined. I stole the pony and harness on 3rd October, and kept them three days before I took the pony to the prisoner's on Monday, the 6th—I did not take the things straight from where I sold them to these men—I had not been imprisoned before I had the six months—I hadtwo months' imprisonment two or three years before that.

WILLIAM BELHAM . I live at 12, Seymour Street, Battersea, and am a general dealer—on 15th October I was at Farningham Fair, about 14 or 15 miles from Woolwich, where I saw the prisoners, and bought from the elder Malin a pony, cart, and harness for 10l., he giving me back half-a-crown for luck—the son was present, and I gave him 1s. out of the half-crown—on 17th October I received information, in consequence of which I went to Woolwich, where I saw the elder Malin—I told him

the cart I had bought was stolen, and we went together to the police-station and saw Inspector Webber—I still have the pony and cart.

Cross-examined. When I told him the pony and cart were stolen he said he would go to the police-station to clear himself—he said he had bought it from a man who lived two or three doors from him, and I and he went to the man's house to see if he was at home, and from there we went to the police-station, and a conversation took place between Malin and Webber.

By theJURY. The name was rubbed off the cart when I bought it.

ROBERT MCKENZIE (Police Sergeant N). On 18th October I was at Woolwich Police-court when Pierce was brought up and charged—Rider was there—I saw Henry Malin, and spoke to him about Rider's horse and cart, which had been found in Mr. Belham's possession—I asked Henry Malin where he bought the pony and cart from—he said, "From the prisoner Pierce, I gave 5l. for it, he told me his father had left it to him; I took it to Farningham Fair and sold it to Mr. Belham, of Battersea, for 10l., and I gave him half-a-crown back"—that is all Malin told me about it.

JOHN WEBBER (Police Inspector). On the night of 17th October Mr. Belham and Henry Malin came to the station—Belham in Malin's presence said he had purchased a pony and cart from Malin, which had that day been identified as stolen property—Belham asked that Malin should accompany him to Battersea—Malin asked my advice—I asked Malin where he had purchased the pony and cart from—he said from a man, he did not know his name, but that he lived a door or two from him in the same street—I said it would be necessary that Malin should remain at Woolwich, as he was the only man that knew the prisoner Pierce, the man referred to—Mr. Belham did not agree, he was rather annoyed, and left the station—Malin remained there till 9 o'clock, when Morgan came in, and I gave instructions for him to go and arrest this man, who turned out to be Pierce—Malin also stated it was at his request they came to the station—he said he expected to see Pierce in reference to some boots he had got for one of his children—he went out with Morgan, and Pierce was taken in custody that night.

Cross-examined. I said at the police-court, "He said he had it from a man who lived a door or two from him in the same street, he did not know his name."

ALFRED CLOAK . On 13th October Pierce pledged with me two cloths for 5s.—one was identified by Mr. Rider, and one in the other case.

WILLIAM MORGAN (Police Sergeant). On the night of 17th October I found Henry Malin at the station—Webber was there and said two ponies, a trap, and harness had been identified that day that Malin had bought from a man—Malin said that the man lived close to him, and I was directed by Webber to accompany Malin to try and find the thief—I went to Ropeyard Rails in Woolwich, and waited at the back door of 65, Beresford Street, and about a quarter past 9 Pierce came up—when he came opposite the door-Malin went and put his hand on his arm and said, "How much for this?"—he said, "My brother is inside"—I caught hold of his arm and asked him how he accounted for the two ponies, cart, and harness, Mr. Rider's and Mr. Barrington's, that he had sold to Mr. Malin, which had that day been identified as stolen property—he made no reply—I asked him what his name was—he said Pierce—

I asked him how he accounted for the pony in his possession—Henry Malin was then standing beside him—he said he bought it in the City Road—that was Draper's, and about 13 hands high, the one he had just come up the Railings with—I asked him who he bought it from—he made no answer—I took him to the station—Pierce was then taken into custody, charged, and remanded—when waiting for Pierce, Malin said his son was locked up in London for a black mare pony he had bought of the prisoner, on Wednesday night I understood him to say; that was Barrington's—he said his son had been taken that day at the Caledonian Market, Islington.

Cross-examined. It was through him I took Pierce, who was first only charged with the unlawful possession of the horse I found him leading—then as soon as I got further information from Malin these other charges were added.

JOHN BOWEN (Policeman Y 4). At 3.15 p.m. on 17th October I was on duty at the south-east gate of the Metropolitan Cattle Market—Mr. George Barrington, jun., spoke to me, and from what he said I went into the market, where I saw the Manchesters, and they pointed out Thomas Malin to me—I took Malin then into custody with reference to Barrington's black mare pony, and he was afterwards locked up.

Cross-examined. Malin was standing close by George and Alfred Manchester; they pointed out Malin as the man they had bought a pony of—I took him into custody; they said "Don't take hold of him or he shan't go"—people in plain clothes held me—I took him and the two Manchesters too; they were never charged, but discharged from custody—Thomas Malin said his father bought the pony of some man at Woolwich on the 16th—I will not swear he did not say the man lived two doors off—I searched and found some money on him.

Re-examined. The Manchesters were not charged, but Thomas Malin was with reference to Barrington's pony.

NOT GUILTY .

PIERCE— Two Years' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Monday, November 24th, 1884, and seven following days.

Before Mr. Justice Stephen.

Reference Number: t18841117-62

62. CHARLES THOMAS (31), THOMAS WILLIAM NASH (38), and EDWARD GUNNELL (50), were indicted for feloniously forging and uttering a certain will purporting to be the will of James Whalley, with intent to defraud.

ERNEST CHEYNIES . I am a clerk in the principal Probate Registry at Somerset House—I produce from the custody of the Registry there a number of documents, together with the proceedings in several actions, also the documents impounded by order of Mr. Justice Manisty.

ALFRED MOYLE . I am now Master of the Hereford Union Workhouse—for the greater part of 1877 to 1881 I resided in South Street, Leominster—in 1881 I was Relieving Officer and Registrar of Births and Deaths, and Superintendent of the Census returns there—I knew the prisoner Thomas in that year—about the early part of April that year

he came to my place—I cannot say the date, it was about 5 o'clock in the afternoon; I went to his house and saw him in his garden—I then went into Mr. Whalley's room, a sitting-room, on the ground floor—Rees came in directly after—there was no one in the room, I think, when I first went in, except Mr. Whalley and myself—I can't remember what furniture there was in the room; I remember as table, sofa, chairs, and writing-desk—Mr. Whalley told me in consequence of news he had recently received he had resolved to alter his will, and he wished me to be one of the attesting witnesses—I think Rees came in during the conversation—I believe Mr. Whalley made use of somewhat similar words to him, explaining to him why he had sent for him also—he then drew my attention to a document lying on his writing-table, and he sat down and signed his name to it, and made a remark something like "That is not a bad signature for an old man," and he expressed something like "This is my act and deed," or some words to that effect—before I signed my name I was looking down the attestation clause, and he thought, apparently, that I was reading the will, and he said "There is no occasion for you to read the will," so I explained that I was only reading the attestation clause—I then signed my name and my address, "120, South Street, Registrar of Births and Deaths"—I noticed that the date to the attestation clause was the correct date—I think Mr. Whalley died on 7th May, I would not be certain—I saw Thomas that day, he came to my house with a message from Mr. Gunnell, inviting me to the General—he said that Mr. Whalley had left in writing a great deal of matter relative to his wishes, among others the names of the persons he wished to attend his funeral, and among them—I asked him who were likely to attend, his relatives I meant—he explained that there were no relatives, except the young man, the adopted son, and he said "He has left his money to myself and Priestman, his adopted son," or rather, he said, "to my wife and children"—I was present when the funeral left the house where Mr. Whalley had been living—a great number of people were there—the Vicar, Mr. Edwards, Thomas, Priestman, Nash and his wife, and Gunnell—Gunnell said that Mr. Whalley's affairs would astonish Leoninster, that they were like a romance, "as you will hear by-and-by," and he made a motion as though he was putting his hand into his pocket—after the funeral I went back to the house—all the three prisoners were there, Mr. Priestman, and myself, and I think Mr. Gunnell. jun., Captain Gunnell, and Nash—no will was produced while I was there—some time after the funeral, I think it would be during May, I met Gunnell in the street—he asked if I could call on him, because he wanted to talk to me—I called several times, but did not see him—I saw him in the street, and said I had called and not seen him—he appeared to have forgotten the circumstance; he began to ask me what I had had to do with Mr. Whalley—he said "I understand you have signed something for him"—I said "Yes, I signed a will of Mr. Whalley's"—he said "How do you know it was a ill?"—I said "Because he told me so"—he suggested that it was a transfer of stock or something of that kind—I said "No, it was not that, I know what those things are; I know it was a will by the attestation of it"—he said "I may as well tell you that the next-of-kin of Mr. Whalley are making a disturbance about the will so very likely they will as you questions; you had better be careful what you say, you don't know much about it"—I don't exactly recollect

the words, it was something like that—he said that very likely I should be subpœnaed, and I had better be careful what I said about it, that I did not know much, and I had better not know anything—I said "Whatever I know any one is welcome to know"—he said "If we subpoena you, mind your fees will be all right"—I don't think any one else was present at this time—I think Mr. Gunnell, jun., walked in and out of the office, but not to stay—I once asked Thomas what date the will was that I had attested—he suggested something about the beginning of March, I said I did not think so, I thought it was in April—he talked to me several times about the affair, about the old gentleman's peculiarities, and things of that sort, nothing very particular; he always seemed anxious to talk to me about it.

By theCOURT. The document I signed was a blue paper.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. I knew Mr. Whalley from his appearance in the street; I never had much Conversation with him; I dare say I have said both to Thomas and Gunnell that he was a very eccentric person—no doubt he was an eccentric man—I became acquainted with the fact that the next-of-kin were contesting the will on the ground that he was not in a fit state to make a will—I don't think it was in consequence of that that I expressed an opinion that he was eccentric—I have said more than once that my mode of acquiring the date of my visit was by reference to the census—I don't think the census occupied quite a month; it occupied till about the middle of April, but I don't know accurately—I think I asked Thomas a few days after Mr. Whalley was buried about the date of the will being executed; I did not then remember the day—Mr. Turner has asked me about it, I can't remember when—Mr. Neale was the first person who spoke to me about it—I think it was in the autumn of 1881 that Mr. Turner spoke to me; it was before the trial in London—I don't remember where I saw him because I removed to Hereford soon after—in September, 1881, I saw Mr. Neale about it at Leominster—I think I first saw Mr. Turner at Hereford, I can't say the date—I was at the two trials; I believe Mr. Neale took down my evidence for the first trial; I believe he and Mr. Turner were acting together—I don't think Mr. Turner spoke to me more than once about the date that I attested the will—I had some conversation with Mr. Childs, the station-master at Leominster, before I left; that was some time before September, 1881—I do not remember having any conversation with Mr. Turner and Mr. Childs about July or August, 1882, on the same subject, I won't say I did not; I don't remember seeing them together on 1st August, 1882, I may have done so and I may not—I have always said that it was in April that I attested the will, but I could not tell the day; I said before the Magistrate that I could not pledge myself one way or the other whether it was March or April—I read the attestation clause—the will was written on a large piece of blue paper, a single sheet written on both pages, on both sides of the paper—what I saw was the attestation clause at the end; I knew it was written on the other side because there was no heading at this side; wills generally commence "This is my last will and testament," and generally in large writing; I infer from that that it was written on the other side also—when the old gentleman took up the paper I saw there was writing on the other side—it was larger paper than foolscap. (Several sheets of paper were handed to the witness.) I think it was larger than the largest of these, it was an unusual size; it was not

square, it was longer than wide—the writing on the side where the attestation clause was, occupied about one-third of the way down—the attestation clause was on one side of it, on the left-hand side of the signature—I saw the signature, and I saw the date in the attestation clause, written in writing—I did not see the date anywhere else, not below the signature—I think my statement for the trials was written down more than once, about twice or three times; it was read over and I signed it before the solicitor at my own house—I think Mr. Neale took one and Mr. Turner another, and I think Mr. Lloyd took another; I believe that was before the first trial, but I would not be certain about Mr. Turner's being before the first trial, I mean before the compromise.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. I assumed office as master of the Here-ford Union in October, 1881—Mr. Gunnell gave me a testimonial—I had certain communications with Mr. Turner in reference to this matter; I answered his questions and gave him every information I could—it was before the funeral, in Mr. Whalley's sitting-room, that Mr. Gunnell said that Mr. Whalley's affairs would startle Leominster—I believe they did startle Leominster—I think my conversation with Mr. Gunnell was in May; it may have been the middle of May; I don't know to whom I first mentioned it, or when—it was in 1881—I told my wife and many persons about it; I told Mr. Neale and Mr. Turner; that was previous to the action in the Queen's Bench—it was never put in writing though—I don't think it was put in writing by Mr. Turner—I don't remember its being in the deposition—I believe I did not mention it in the Queen's Bench; I was never asked about it—the signature I attested was towards the bottom of the paper, not near the end of the writing; there was plenty of space between—it was very large writing and large initials.

Re-examined. When the census papers are collected and done with we return the whole of them to Somerset House, we keep nothing whatever.

HENRY WHALLEY PRIESTMAN .I live at 4, Milton Street, Derby—I was born on the 2nd of February, 1860—I have a sister, Emma, who is older than myself—when 1 was a child about five years old I and my sister went to live with the late Mr. Whalley at Douglas, Isle of Man—we continued to live with him from that time—I used then to call him uncle—I did not know my relationship to him until shortly before his death—I went first to school near Carlisle, afterwards at Preston, than at Shrewsbury Grammar School, and lastly at Hereford Cathedral School—I and my sister were then living with my father at Hereford—I left school at 16, and my father got me a clerkship on the Midland Railway there—while living at Hereford there was a difference between my father and my sister, and my father refused to live any longer with her—he left me and my sister at Hereford—I received some letters from him in January and September, 1877 (These were in reference to the house and furniture at Hereford, and promising to send the witness 20l. a year)—my father went to Leominster, lodging first in Etnam Street, and in 1878 he removed to the house of the prisoner Thomas—in 1880 I and my sister removed to 27, Bateman Street, Derby, in consequence of my promotion on the railway—my father used to send me 20l. a year, and he came to see me from time to time—Thomas's house was one of four rooms and a scullery—he (Thomas) was at that time a porter at the Leominster Railway Station—my father occupied the sitting room on the ground floor and a back bedroom above, at 9s. per week—the rooms were by no means

expensively furnished—between 1878 and 1880 I had been to see him at Leominster on two or three occasions, and he had been to see me at Here-ford several times—I received a letter from him on 24th January, 1881, stating that he was staying at Summer Hill, Isle of Man, for the benefit of his health, the doctors differing as to what he was suffering from—in that letter Mr. Whalley also wrote:—"Except I am improved in health, I am afraid my fishing days are over, for I am ordered to keep very quiet and free as much as possible from all excitement, and not to walk fast or far; but I place my faith more in One that ruleth over all things, both human and divine, than upon doctors, and advising you to do the same, I remain your well-wisher and sincere friend, J. Whalley"—my father had promised me one of his gold watches—I received the letter produced, dated February 8th, 1881, saying that he had returned from the Isle of Man without much benefit to his health, and that he now sent me the gold watch he had worn for a long time (Various letters were here put in and read. One was from Mr. Whalley to his agents, Messrs. Fenn and Crosthwaite, of February 25th, 1881, telling them that he had an adopted son whom he should, like to see settled; that he had an idea of trying to get him a partnership in a Stock Exchange business in London, Liverpool, or else-where, and capital would be forthcoming to any reasonable extent on his being satisfied on all points. The next letter to witness enclosed him 5l., and asked him whether he would like to go to Australia. Another one to Fenn and Crosthwaite gave some directions as to selling stocks. The next letter was to witness, dated March 3rd, 1881, and referred to finding him a partnership on the Stock Exchange. That letter enclosed a letter from Fenn and Crosthwaite. Three letters, dated March 3rd, 8th, and 9th, 1881, from Mr. Whalley to Mr. Greig, the manager of the Leeds Bank, were also read. They referred to the investment of capital for the benefit of his adopted son, Henry Whalley Priestman, who was described as a very good writer and a steady young man, who in a few days would be able to take charge of a counting-house.) On some occasions he addressed me as "Dear Sir," and on others as "My dear Harry"—on Saturday, March 12th, I went to Leominster and remained there till Monday, the 14th—when I arrived I met the prisoner Thomas, and went with him to his house, 128, South Street—I there saw my father—he seemed very ill—he could only just manage to walk about alone, but he said he was a trifle better than he had been—he told me that the Thomases had been kind in nursing him during his illness—I slept in Etnam Street, and had my meals with my father in the daytime—we were quite alone together—the Thomases did not take their meals in the same room—my father told me that he had been looking after a house in the Hereford Road, about 200 yards from where he lived, and said he thought of moving away from the Thomases on account of the noise—the Thomases had children living in the house; that was what he meant—he added that he intended to have me with him, so that I could drive him about and generally attend to him—on one occasion, after dinner, he said to me that he had recently made a will leaving 10,000l. to each of his brothers and the remainder to myself—he told me the executors were Thomas and myself; he may have said something about having left money to us; he said his circle of acquaintances was not very large in Leominster, and that Mr. Gunnell, who was a thorough man of the world, was best known to him—on that occasion he showed me a small pocket-book with a black cover (produced), and

be gave it to me to look at—it contained an account of all the securities, I believe—I went through the list with him, and when he had finished them he asked what I thought the total would be—I replied, "Perhaps between 40,000l. and 50,000l."—he said, "You might be farther wrong than that"—he also spoke about transferring 10,000l. of the North British Railway to my name in the Great Western Railway of Canada, and said that I might get good advice if in need of it from Mr. Greig, of Leeds, with whom he had been in communication about the partnership—he also mentioned his stockbrokers, Messrs. Fenn and Crosthwaite—I breakfasted with him on the Monday morning, and left him on friendly terms and went to Derby—he told me to come again as soon as I could, that was on March 14th—on 1st April I wrote to my father, returning a letter in pencil which I could not read. (Asking that Gunnell or Thomas might re-write it for him)—I received a reply on the following day which I have looked for but cannot find; but I remember that he said he was not at all surprised that I could not make it out, as he himself could not make top nor tail of it—he gave me the purport of it, which was that he had been in communication with Mr. Greig as to a partnership with Messrs. Dixon, and asked me why I had not been to see him, in accordance with his previous letter—he said he had been very ill, almost at the point of death, and wanted to see me very much, and could not understand why I had not been to see him—I wrote back that I had not received any such communication, and that had I received it, I certainly should have been able to have gone over to see him—I received in reply a slip with a few lines from Thomas stating that he had written to me at Mr. Whalley's request asking me to go over, and that if I had not received it he supposed it had got lost through the post—I destroyed the letter from Thomas by using it to stand on in a bathing machine at new Brighton. (Letters were here ready showing the steps which Mr. Whalley took to trace the rumours which had reached him as to the death of his two brothers)—I went to Leominster on April 15th, Good Friday, and met my father in a field leaning on a stile—he spoke to me about the letter which had been lost through the post, and said it generally happened that important things got lost—he also said he had been vary ill—that afternoon he showed me a house of Mr. Page's in Hereford Road, which he said he intended to take—on Sunday, the 17th, he told me he had been making inquiries about his brothers, and had ascertained they were dead, and he showed me the letters about them—he said that had caused him to alter his will and he had left me the two 10,000l. legacies which he had intended for his brothers—he then went to the cupboard and took out this ledger (produced)—he unlocked it and took out a large piece of blue foolscap paper—he said "That's my will," and he gave it to me to read—one side of the paper was covered, and half the other side, with his own writing—he bequeathed by it 100l. to Thomas, 100l. to Gunnell, 400l., towards the restoration of a small private church at Leominster, and the rest to myself—I have not seen the document since—as to the witnesses, I only remember that one of them was a Registrar of Births and Deaths—the executors were Thomas, Gunnell, and myself—I did not notice the date—after I had read it I gave it back, thanked him, and told him I was very grateful—he replaced it in the ledger and put it in the cupboard—he said he kept it, together with his bonds and securities, in the false bottom of a tin box

in a cupboard in his bedroom—on Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning I returned to Derby, and after I got home I had a conversation with my sister about what had taken place, and told her what had passed between me and my father—this letter is in my father's handwriting to my sister: "April 19th, 1881.—J. Whalley to E. Priestman.—As I am not sure your brother will tell you, I have resolved to do so myself, so that you may have it from me, and that there may be no envy between you in after life. I have been very ill, and, in fact, almost dead, and I have therefore just settled my affairs. As my brothers are dead, I have now left Harry everything and you nothing, as I believe you have deceived me, and are not what you represented when you took that oath, which I still have (under lock and Key). You have no one to blame but yourself for it. I do not wish to rake up old sores, nor do I wish to injure or disparage you wrongfully, all I wish is to show you what you are and what you might have been had you taken my advice and been a modest, prudent woman. I would say more, but I am overdone with writing this. J. W."—I first heard of my sister having received that letter, in the spring of 1882—I knew nothing of the oath—I never heard from or of my father again until 7th May, when I received a telegram, which was delivered about 4.15.—I did not get it until 6.30, as I was about the town at the time—it was from Gunnell: "Mr. Whalley died suddenly this morning. Made arrangements for funeral on Tuesday. You need not come before Monday, as I will see to matters"—the last train to Leominster was at 3.40 p.m., and I was therefore too late to reach Leominster that day—I got there on the Sunday evening at 8.30—I met Thomas at the station, and walked with him to the house and into the room occupied by my father—I asked him what had become of the securities and bonds in my father's possession; he said that Gunnell had taken charge of them, and that it would be all right, and that Mr. Gunnell had got the will—I slept at Thomas's that night, and next morning I went with him to Gunnell's house in Church Street—Gunnell told me that he had got the will and securities, and that he would read the will on the day of the funeral, after the funeral—I did not know the contents before it was read—I stayed with Gunnell after the Monday; the funeral was on Tuesday, May 10—when we returned from the funeral to Thomas's, Gunnell said "We will read the will now, but as it does not interest any one but us three we had better be alone"—after some five minutes he read the will, he, Thomas, and I alone being present—after he had finished I did not make any remark—he then read it again, and I said "Astonishing!"—he had taken the will from his breast pocket—Thomas then got up, went to the table, drank a glass of wine, and said, "Well, there it is, and I suppose the money will be mine"—this is the will (produced)—Gunnell then replaced it in his pocket—I never had it in my possession—I saw it next early in April, 1882, at the Probate Office, Hereford—I left Thomas in the house and walked with Gunnell to his house—I told him on the way that the whole thing was a mystery to me, my only being left 5,000l. after seeing my father's will at my last visit, in which he had left me the whole of his property, and asked him whether he had seen that will—he said "No," and that the one he had got was the only one he had seen, and if what I had told him was really the case, he was very sorry for me, and felt for me as if I was his own son—I believe I told him that my father a short time before that had left a will

leaving 10,000l. to each of his brothers, and the remainder to me, after some small legacies, 100l. to himself, 100l. to Gunnell, and 400l. towards the restoration of the private church at Leominster—he said that he would do all that was necessary regarding the will, and I need not trouble to act as executor, because it was not necessary—on 12th May I went to Mr. Lloyd's office to read over the securities—he is Gunnell's solicitor—Gunnell said that I had better not say anything about what I had told him about the will, leaving me all the property, because it would serve no good, and Mr. Lloyd might advertise for the next-of-kin, and thus deprive me of the whole of the property—I agreed, and did not mention it to Mr. Lloyd—the securities were read over at Mr. Lloyd's, and amounted to 55,000l. or 56,000l.—I stayed at Leominster about a week on that occasion—Gunnell said he sympathised with me, and he should get Thomas to let me have the 5,000l. duty free, as he thought it was only fair that I should have it clear—I returned to Derby, and a month afterwards received a telegram from Thomas, in consequence of which I went to Leominster, and met Thomas and Gunnell at the station—we walked down to Gunnell's, and on the way they said that a letter from the next-of-kin had got into Gunnell's hands, having been wrongly delivered—Gunnell said that he should not like to show it to me, as it contained something regarding my family that I should not like; something cruel, I think he said—he did not show it to me—he said that the next-of-kin was some great pot living at some Hall in the North of England, and it would be better for me not to have anything to do with him, because he might do mo out of the 5,000l.—I agreed to what he said—he showed me the envelope of the letter—this is it (produced)—Mr. John James Whalley is the next-of-kin (This was addressed to S. Green Gunnitt, from John James Whalley, Aldringham Hall, near Ottex, acknowledging a letter from Gunnell, and stating that he was very sorry to hear of his uncle's death, and replying to several questions in Gunnell's letter as to the family, and stating that his uncle had some illegitimate children by a woman named Priestman.) The signatures to these two affidavits are Gunnell's and Thomas's. (The first stated that the will was in the same state as when it was found, and the second that the property did not amount to 60,000l.)—I communicated with John James Whalley in August, 1881, and I then received this letter (This was dated 19th August, 1881, and stated: "If you have not been served with a copy of the writ at the instance of the late John Whalley, nephew, you will be in a few days; that being so, write me, or, what is better, wire me at once, so that I may put in an appearance for you; be careful and circumspect as to what you say, &c. E. Gunnell.) A few days afterwards I received this telegram from Gunnell, dated 22nd August: "Meet me at Derby station on Tuesday morning, 10.10 train; have the paper you were served with with you." I met Gunnell at 10.10 on 23rd August—I believe it was about a hundred yards from the station, as the train was late, driving up in a Hansom, and went with him to the Midland Hotel, to the smoking room; we were by ourselves—I asked him whether it was true that he had prevented my father transferring 10,000 into Great Western of Canada into my name—he said that it was, and the reason he did so was he thought I was too young to take care of such an amount of money—I told him I had had an interview with young Mr. Whalley the day before, and his solicitor, Mr. Neale, and I

felt inclined to go on his side, that is, against the will—he said "Why should you do so?"—I said that Mr. Whalley had promised that I should not lose by it, and from what I had heard I thought the whole thing a swindle—he told me to be careful what I was doing, as I might lose everything, and said "If you are not satisfied with what you have got what will you take? say 10,000l., "and then he went to 15,000l. and 20,000l., and just before he left me in the refreshment room in the station he offered me as much as 25,000l.—he said that he had got sufficient influence over Thomas to induce him to give me that amount—I had not agreed with the next-of-kin at that time; I told Gunnell I should see them that night, and I would write to him—Gunnell went with me to my house in Bateman Street and saw my sister there; that was before the conversation in the refreshment room and after that in the smoking room—he asked me in her presence whether I had got any proposition to make, and told me to be careful not to jump out of the frying-pan into the fire, and not to accept any promise—my sister said she knew that the money was mine—I think Gunnell asked us to consider the matter over again and let him know—we promised to do so by letter—this is a letter of 28th August, 1881, addressed by me. (This was to Gunnell, and stated that the writer had met Whalley, that he seemed to be a gentleman, and that he (Priestman) upheld his determination to assist him in every way in overthrowing his uncle's will, and hoped that Gunnell would not be offended at the course he was taking.) Torr and Co. were Rayner and Co.'s agents. (The pleadings were here put in of the action of Whalley against Thomas and Gunnell to have the will set aside and intestacy declared, Gunnell and Thomas in their defence setting up the will of the 21st, March, 1881.) I was present at the trial of that issue on 10th June, 1882, in the Court of Probate, before Sir James Hannen and a Special Jury—before the case came on terms were agreed upon. (The original terms of the compromise in the Probate Court were here read, by which Thomas was to receive 17,000l., his costs, and the remainder to be divided between Henry Whalley Priestman and the next-of-kin.) After that compromise the will was proved; I was present then—Nash went into the witness-box and gave formal evidence as to his making the will, and to his and Rees's signing it in the testator's presence; that they were all present at the same time—by making, I mean that he wrote the will—after the interview between myself and Gunnell in August, 1881, I next saw Gunnell in the spring of the next year at Leominster; Mr. Turner, my solicitor, was with me—I then asked Gunnell whether he had got the blue will that I told him about, leaving me the whole of the property—he laughed in derision, saying he had not seen anything of it, that the one of 21st March was the only one he had seen—he said, as I had my solicitor with me, it was only fair for him to have one, and he asked us to meet him at Mr. Lloyd's—we went there, but Mr. Lloyd refused to hear anything we had got to say—on the 17th June, 1882, about a week after the compromise, we drove to Leominster; Mr. Turner was there, and Mr. Green Smith, the solicitor for young Mr. Whalley—as we drove past Thomas's house on a brake Thomas held up a piece of blue paper at the window, and waved it about; there was some writing on the paper, but being so far off I could not see what it was—it was half folded; it appeared to be a foolscap sheet folded up—This letter is in Gunnell's handwriting—it was produced in the trial before Justice Manisty—Mr. Patchett

is the district manager of the Great Western Railway Company. (This letter was from Gunnell to Patchett, August 26th, 1882. This stated that he heard it was Patchett's intention to remove Thomas from the station, that he had known him twelve years, and had always found him a most ready and attentive servant, and that general regret would be felt by a large number of the inhabitants if he was removed, and that also a friend of his, Mr. James Whalley, was staying with Thomas, who had gone to great expense in furnishing suitable apartments.) This letter is also in Gunnell's handwriting. (This was dated 21st September, 1881, to the Chairman and Guardians of the Leominster Union, and was a statement by Gunnell that, hearing that Edward Rees was candidate for the vacant post of relieving officer, he had pleasure in bearing testimony to his ability for the post, and that for many years he had know him as an honest, sober, and most trustworthy man.) These documents (produced) are all in my father's handwriting—the first time I saw this envelope was this time last year in the Civil Court before Mr. Justice Manisty. (This was addressed: "This is to be opened only by Edward Gunnell, Esq., wine and spirit merchant," there was some name underneath crossed out, and then "Particulars as to banking accounts, railway and mining shares, as well as the particulars of foreign and other bonds which I hold, will be found in a small book where this is, as well as in a large ledger in one of my trunks.") That is in my father's handwriting; I scarcely know who produced it at the trial—this is signed by Charles Thomas and Edward Gunnell,. (This was an affidavit of 26th February, 1884, in the High Court of Justice, probate Division, in the action between Priestman and Thomas and Gunnell, in which Thomas and Gunnell swore that no will of Mr. Whalley, either before or after his death, had come to their or their solicitor's knowledge save the will of 21st March.) (MR. DANCKWERTZhere called for the production of the will of 1872 and of the 12th March, 1881, which were not produced.) This (produced) is signed by Thomas and Gunnell. (This was an affidavit of scripts, dated 26th August, 1881, in which Thomas and Gunnell swore that no will or codicil of Whalley's nor instructions for a will or codicil, had come to their or their solicitor's possession before or since his death, except the true will of 21st March, 1881.) Mr. Gunnell has said to me he has been executor under other wills—This is my father's James Whalley's signature to this will—I saw the white will on the occasion of the officials I believe—Mr. Turner was with me then—I don't think from the beginning of 1882 In saw it till I saw it at the trial before Mr. Justice Manisty.

Tuesday, November 25th.

HENRY WHALEY PRIESTMAN (Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD). I am 24 years old; I have two sisters and the three brothers, all older than myself—I first became acquainted with the fact that I was Mr. Whalley's son in March, 1881; I cannot tell you exactly what he said; he said that I had been in the habit of calling him uncle, and "I may tell you, I may not perhaps have to live much longer, that I am not so," words something like that—that was in his sitting-room at Leominster—nobody else was present—I think that is all I can remember—it was my habit to write to him "My dear father by adoption," after I had learned that he was in fac my father—he had not told me that I was not to expect anything from him at his death—he

told me I could not expect anything if I did not behave myself properly, but so long as I kept myself right I should no doubt come into something. (A letter dated July 28th, 1876, from Mr. Whalley, was put in and read cautioning the witness to do his duty, and make himself fit for something better by-and-by, as, if not, he must not depend on him. Another letter, of December 28th, 1876, referred to the misconduct of the sister of witness)—I knew that, rightly or wrongly, my father was not on good terms with my sister—I once wrote, I think, to my father stating that I did not like my sister being from home when I returned from work—I knew that he had been angry with her—I did not tell her that I had written to my father about her—I was on terms of great affection with my sister—we lived constantly together—before I saw the pocket-book containing the list of securities I knew that my father was rich—I heard him tell Mr. Carr, the stationmaster at Hereford, six or seven years ago, that he intended transferring 10,000l. or 15,000l. of stock—it was no surprise to me when I saw the list of securities—immediately after my visit I told my sister about the blue will leaving me the whole of the property—I do not think I told my sister about the conversation with my father wherein he told me that he had left me his property subject to 10,000l. to each of his brothers—I may have told my sister that she was the daughter of Mr. Whalley; I believe she knew it—at that time I knew that he had a very large sum of money to dispose of—after the death I told my sister that I had only got 5,000l.—I mentioned to her that I had seen a will later in date than the one put forward—in the spring of 1882 my sister first told me that she had received the letter of the 19th of April, 1881, from Mr. Whalley—she and I had talked the matter of the will over, but it was not till the spring of 1882 that I first saw the letter—I think it was first shown me by Mr. Turner, my solicitor, at Derby—my sister had told me that she had something important which she would communicate to Mr. Turner, and I therefore wrote to him in March or April, 1882—I did not ask her what it was—she and I had had several conversations—she said she knew the money was mine, and when I asked her how she knew it she replied that she would tell Mr. Turner—it was two or three weeks after that that I first saw the letter—the letter from Thomas enclosed in one from my father was, as near as I can recollect, in these words: "In accordance with Mr. Whalley's request, I write you to say that I duly posted a letter to you a few days ago asking you to come over and see him, as he was very ill, and I cannot understand why you have not got that letter;" or words to that effect—that letter I lost in a bathing-machine on July 2nd, 1881—I threw it in the sea—at that time I had not been to a solicitor—I first saw Mr. Turner in August or September, through an introduction from Mr. J.J. Whalley, the next-of-kin—after the compromise I knew the importance of Thomas having written a letter stating that he had previously sent one which had not been received—I will swear I told my solicitors the way in which I lost the letter—in my affidavit of 7th June, 1883, I may have sworn "that No. 4 in the schedule was last in my possession in April, 1881, when I destroyed the same, thinking it was not, and never would be, of importance"—I will take it that Thomas's letter is the document there referred to—I don't know that it is; there may have been a confusion with regard to it—I destroyed a document of my father's in April, and the two may have got confused—Mr. J.J. Whalley, the next-of-kin, was introduced

to me by Mr. Turner, in August, 1881, and we agreed to upset the will of the 21st of March if we could—we had seen a Mr. Neale at that time—there was a bargain between us that in any event I was not to lose my 5,000l.; that was the only bargain—we were each to pay our own costs—there was at no time, nor is there now, any agreement in writing—I knew the defence that was raised for me in December, 1881—I remember answering interrogatories in November, 1881, with the advice of my solicitors, to whom I had told everything—I had mentioned to them that I had seen the blue will and read its contents (Portion of affidavit, dated 24th December, 1881, read to the witness)—at that time I had not heard of the letter my father wrote to my sister—my statement to my solicitor in August, 1881, was taken down in shorthand—I will swear that I then said I had seen the will—I did not remember the names of the attesting witnesses, but only recollected the fact that one held an office—I mentioned it in my first interview with my solicitor in August, 1881, and told him that one of the witnesses occupied the position of registrar of births and deaths—I said I had seen the will at Leominster—my father did not confine himself to any one particular style in writing his letters—I have seen letters of his written close to the left-hand edge—the letter to my sister was submitted to experts in handwriting at the time of the compromise—the late Mr. Chabot was one of the experts, and he gave an opinion in our favour; Mr. Turner told me so—I went several times with Mr. Turner to Hereford, first about March, 1882—I went once to inspect the will about that same month—in my examination in the Chancery proceedings I paid that no one else was present, except my solicitor, when I first examined the will—I did not mean the officials—I did not notice any one in the room—that was about March, 1882—Mr. Turner also examined the will on that occasion—he did not try to find a grease spot on it on that occasion, I swear that—I only saw the will once to see whether the signature was genuine—I did not find any grease spot—it is possible that this might have been in April, 1882—I saw it only once with Mr. Turner for five or ten minutes—it was given to us by one of the officials, on a desk, as far as I remember—I don't think it was near a window, I think it was two yards away—Mr. Turner did not call my attention to any marks on the will—I have been to Hereford two or three times with him, not to inspect the will—about 10 days after the compromise had taken place I had an interview with Mr. Turner at the Oak Hotel, Leominster, about upsetting the compromise—we were at Leominster for no particular purpose; we drove over—I knew Mr. Childs, but I did not know that he was to make an application to the witnesses of the will—I never gave any authority to Mr. Turner to employ him, nor was I aware that he was being employed for upsetting the compromise—I never spoke to Rees or Nash till some time after the compromise, and only to Rees in October, 1882, after he gave his signed statement—I then saw Rees at the Oak in Leominster—I did not know that Childs had been employed to promise a sum of money to Rees and Nash; my solicitor never told me about any such thing—I authorised Mr. Turner to take means for upsetting the compromise if he could; I gave him instructions to that effect—one of my grounds for doing so was that Thomas had waved a piece of blue paper at the window, which I thought was the will I had seen—that was on 17th June, as we were driving past

the windows in a brake to Hereford—some time in the following week I gave Mr. Turner instructions to upset the compromise, partly on the ground that I had seen Thomas waving the blue paper, and partly from the fact that Mr. Turner had told me that Nash had made a statement to him at Ludlow—I think that it was Joseph Nash who had spoken to him, but I saw some letters from Thomas Nash to Mr. Turner—Mr. Turner said that Thomas Nash had told him how the will was made, and I at once instructed Mr. Turner to get the will set aside—the brown case, or book, my father kept continually in his inside waistcoat pocket.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. Under the will of the 21st March, Gunnell was to take 100l. as executor—under the blue will Gunnell was also appointed executor with a 100l. legacy—as far as my knowledge goes, Mr. Gunnell's interest was the same under both wills—at the interview on the 13th March Mr. Whalley mentioned the name of Gunnell, who, he said, was a man of the world, and the person best known to him in Leominster, and I might apply to him if I wanted any advice—Mr. Whalley did say that he had left 10,000l. to each of his brothers, and 100l. each to Thomas and Gunnell, and the remainder to myself—he said that 100l. would amply compensate Thomas for his trouble, and Gunnell for being executors—Mr. Whalley said that he had not a large circle of friends in Leominster, and that Mr. Gunnell, who was a thorough man of the world, was the only respectable man he knew in the town—Mr. Gunnell was a party to the compromise, owing to his position of executor—Mr. Gunnell did not receive any benefit from it, except his 100l. Legacy—since the compromise I have not offered Mr. Gunnell a sum of money, nor instructed my solicitor to make him any such offer—in January, 1883, I was dissatisfied with the compromise; there was never any offer made by my solicitor to Mr. Gunnell—I had an interview with Captain Gunnell on the Sunday after the funeral—I was at that time staying at Gunnell's house—I do not think I told Captain Gunnell of the existence of the blue will—I told him that my father had made one will, and had destroyed it while at the Isle of Man; that Mr. Whalley on one occasion had been angered with me, and that in my presence he put the will into the fire, saying that I should have none of his money—I was then six years old—Mr. Gunnell never referred to these facts subsequently in my presence—I did not tell him that after all I ought to think myself lucky in getting 5,000l.; and it was very funny I should be left that amount—nothing of the sort—I cannot say when Mr. Gunnell became acquainted with the facts of the dispute between my father and sister—I had no conversation with him about it when I was staying in his house—I believe Mr. Whalley was very ill in March—I think I explained to Mr. Gunnell the reason I did not go to him then, after the funeral, or it may have been before—my father allowed me 20l. a year—I supported my sister—my salary on the railway varied; 30l., 40l., and 50l.—we supported ourselves on that and what we had saved—I can't tell you the exact amount of that; perhaps 28l., 30l., or 40l. perhaps—I can't say whether Mr. Gunnell knew that my father was allowing me 20l. a year—I first made Mr. Gunnell's acquaintance at the time of my visit in March, 1881—I believe he was a person of position in Leominster—I knew he had been Mayor—he is a wine merchant, and has been for some time; I cannot tell how long—Mr. Whalley did not appear to be on very friendly terms with him because he made a remark to me, when Mr. Gunnell had gone out: "I

wish these people would not come bothering me so much, I can do without them, "referring to Mr. Gunnell and another lot of visitors, three of them—one was a Mr. Dunkald, and young Mr. Gunnell—his expression was something rather stronger than that—I suggested to Mr. Whalley that Mr. Gunnell should write letters for him, for this reason, that Mr. Gunnell knew Thomas more than they knew Mr. Whalley, and I did not know anybody else in Leominster besides them—that was a sufficient reason why I should refer to them—I heard that in August, 1880, Thomas was at Helsby—I heard a letter read of 26th August from Gunnell—Mr. Whalley never told me that he wished Thomas to return—I think he remarked that his associates at the station were rather pleased that he had gone, on account of his appropriating the tips from passengers—I do not know that numerous requests were made by different persons in the neighbourhood that Thomas should return to Leominster—on 13th March the little black book was shown to me—this is the one (produced)—this is the same book that was afterwards produced at Mr. Lloyd's office—on 16th April I saw the ledger out of which the blue will was taken—that ledger was also produced at Mr. Lloyd's office—on Monday, 8th May, Thomas told me that Gunnell had the care of the packets and the will—I do not know that at that time the will was in Mr. Lloyd's office—it was on Thursday, the 12th, that I went to Mr. Lloyd's office—Mr. Gunnell suggested to me that I should go there in order to look over the securities—the interview at Mr. Lloyd's office was two hours, I should think that time was spent in examining the securities alone; I mean by "alone" that there was nothing else there, the time was occupied in examining the securities—I said yesterday that some time before that Mr. Gunnell told me it would be unnecessary for me to prove—I still adhere to that statement—I could not say whether that remark was made by Mr. Lloyd—Mr. Lloyd did not say "As you reside at Derby, it will be unnecessary for you to prove, because it will save trouble"—Mr. Gunnell told me so—Thomas was present at that interview—I don't know Mr. Cassell, a clerk of Mr. Lloyd's, he did not come in—I have never seen him—the ledger was not checked with the black book; it was done in this way: Mr. Gunnell read out the securities from the bonds, such as were payable to bearer, in the ledger, and they were copied down by Mr. Lloyd, senior, and the valuation made there by one of those slips that are issued giving the current prices of stocks, shares, and so on—I don't think the black book was also compared and checked with the list in the ledger, I have no remembrance of such a thing happening—when I went to Leominster I saw Mr. Gunnell, and the letter from the next-of-kin was referred to, the Green Gullett letter, which Mr. Gunnell said he would not read to me, because it referred to the relations of my mother, Thomas was present, no one else—Capt. Gunnell was not there—I do not think that at that interview I said "What can they do? he did not like his brothers, and would not leave anything to them"—I may have said "What can they do?" but not the rest, or "They cannot do anything, the will is all right and straight, I know"—I did not say anything of that sort—after the interview with Gunnell at the Midland Hotel, Derby, I saw Mr. James Whalley, the same evening—it was in consequence of that interview I wrote the letter of 28th August to Gunnell—I said in that letter, "He seems to be in every respect a perfect gentleman"—it was owing to my interview with Mr. James Whalley that

I took the side of the next-of-kin—Mr. Whalley said that I should not lose my 5,000l.—that was the first time that offer was made me, I am certain of that—there can be no mistake whatever about it—he did not mention any sum at all then, but he said in my second interview with him that I should have the 5,000l. in any event—I was with him for the first time on 22nd August, that was the day before I saw Gunnell—I did not see Mr. Whalley owing to an interview with Mr. Neale, I saw them both together, they called on me together—I saw Mr. Whalley alone on the 21st, that was not owing to information given by Mr. Neale, I saw him by an appointment made the previous night—Mr. Neale told me that Gunnell had prevented my father transferring 10,000l., and that more than anything else I think set me against them—I said in the Queen's Bench something about Mr. Whalley promising me that I should be safe, and that I told Mr. Gunnell from what I had heard the will was a swindle—I believe I said so before the Magistrate; if I did not, I suppose I was not asked—at the time of my interview with Mr. Gunnell, on the 23rd, we were not on unfriendly terms—up to that time he was a friend—I believe he was also a friend of Thomas—if the next-of-kin had succeeded, and there had been an intestacy, I should have got nothing, and Thomas would have got nothing—I can't say that I was ever on very friendly terms with Thomas—I was certainly not on sufficiently friendly terms with him to have entered into an arrangement with him such as I did with Mr. Whalley—under the compromise allowed by the Probate Court I dare say I should have received very nearly the same amount as Mr. Gunnell suggested—I never saw or heard of him after that time, the offer was never repeated—he never told me the contents of the will of 21st March before the funeral, I swear that—I went to hear the will read, expecting to receive a large sum of money—the first time it was read I was completely dumbfounded, I could not say a word; that is my explanation—when it was read the second time I said "Astonishing." Q. How was it, if this was the first time you thought you had been deprived of this large sum of money, that you did not get up immediately and say there was another will?—A. I really could not speak at the time—I remained in the room two or three minutes afterwards; I was speechless all that time.

Re-examined. At the time I wrote the letter of 28th January, 1879, to my father about my sister, I was about 18 or 19—it was written entirely in a temper, on the spur of the moment—my sister continued to live with me after that, and I to support her, having, in addition to what I made, only the 20l. a year that my father sent me—I never saw any of the experts; I left that entirely to my solicitor, and anything I know about it was information I got from him—after the compromise I and Mr. Turner went together to Leominster for a week-end, from Saturday to Monday—that was for pleasure entirely—we drove over in a brake from Hereford; a four-in-hand—we remained in Leominster saw few hours—it was as we were driving back to Hereford that I saw Thomas at the window waving a blue paper—it was waved in an insulting fashion, I thought; a sort of exulting over us; in a sort of triumph; something like that (describing), close to the window—it struck me as being like the blue will I had seen in April—upon that a conversation took place between myself and Mr. Turner—I first heard of the interview that had taken place between Mr. Turner and Joe Nash, a brother of the prisoner,

on the Saturday to Monday occasion—I think Mr. Turner showed me the letters he received from the prisoner Nash; I believe I saw two—I can't say whether both were from the prisoner or whether there was one from each of the Nash's—these (produced) are the letters—I did not notice the Christian name on either.

EMMA PRIESTMAN . I am sister to the last witness, and am some years older than he—my brother and I lived with Mr. Whalley at Shrewsbury and Hereford—when he went to live at Leominster we did not continue to live with him—after my brother returned from his visit to Mr. Whalley in April he told me something—I received the letter produced from Mr. Whalley, dated April 19, 1881. (Read: "April 19th, 1881. J. Whalley to E. Priestman. As I am not sure your brother will tell you, I have resolved to do so myself, so that you may hear it from me, and that there may be no envy between you in future life. I have been very ill, and, in fact, almost dead, and I have just settled my affairs. As I find my brothers are dead, I have now left Harry everything, and you nothing, as I believe you have deceived me, and not acted as you represented when you took the oath, which I still have under 'lock and key. You have no one to blame but yourself. I do not wish to rake up old stories, but all I wish is to show you what you are, and what you might have been, if you had taken my advice, and been a modest, prudent woman. I would say more, but for the burden of writing this. J.W.") I locked it in my desk—I did not show it to my brother or any one—I locked it up because I did not wish any one to see it—I am not aware that any one knew about the oath referred to in the letter except Mr. Whalley—my brother at that time (1867) was only seven and I was 16—in the first week of May, 1882, I first showed the letter to Mr. Turner, my brother's solicitor—I gave it to him, and it remained in his custody until the trial—I destroyed the envelope—I did so from habit; I never keep them—I recollect, in August, 1881, Mr. Gunnell coming to Derby, to the house where my brother and I lived—he came with my brother—almost his first words to my brother were "Have you any proposition to make?"—my brother replied that he had not, but if he should alter his mind he would let Mr. Gunnell know—in talking about the will I said I knew the money was my brother's—Gunnell said "Yes, I know it is"—nothing more of any importance passed—I did take an oath in the presence of Mr. Whalley at the time mentioned in the letter.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. In April, 1881, I was living at Bateman Street, Derby, with my brother—with the exception of this letter, I had not received a letter from my father for about four years—this is the only letter of his that I have kept—I kept this one because I thought it was such a singular letter, and I was surprised to receive it—the suggestions in the letter in reference to my conduct were not true—I did not write back to my father because I was angry—I thought he bad no just cause for forming that judgment of me—my brother and I had always lived on terms of friendship, and I suppose he knew that the reflections upon me were untrue—I remember some of the litigation about the will, and my brother spoke to me about it at times—I knew it was excessively important that he should show that his father had made a will in his favour, and that the letter which I had received consequently became very important—in March, 1882, Mr. Turner called to take down my evidence about Mr. Gunnell's visit—my brother was present, and on

that occasion I sail nothing about the letter—in May following Mr. Turner again came to see me, and I had an interview with him; he stayed about twenty minutes—he came in consequence of my brother having written to him to say that I had an important letter—on that occasion I saw him alone, my brother not having returned from business; that was in Shaftesbury Street, and he stayed about half an hour—we spoke chiefly about our family affairs, and I then gave him the letter; we were alone—I can't tell you how the conversation began—I don't remember anything that was said.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. When my brother and Mr. Gunnell came we were talking about the will of 21st March—I said "I know the money is my brother's," and Mr. Gunnell said "Yes, I know it is"—under that will my brother had 5,000l. left to him.

Re-examined. From the time I received it till I handed it to Mr. Turner, in May, 1882, the letter had been in my possession—in speaking about family matters I did not tell Mr. Turner anything about what was in the letter.

EDWARD REES . I live at 126, South Street, Leominster, next door to Thomas's house—my father is a farmer—I was Sub-Surveyor of Highways from November, 1880, to September, 1883—in 1880 I was acquainted with Thomas—I first spoke to him in November, 1880—he was not then in any employment, but at about Christmas that year he became Sub-Inspector of Nuisances—I knew Mr. Whalley, who was living with Thomas, by sight, and passed the time of day to him; nothing more—Thomas came to me on two occasions in 1881—in the early part of April he fetched me from my father-in-law's, and I went to his house, where I saw Mr. Moyle, the then registrar of births, and Mr. Whalley—that was somewhere about five in the evening—Thomas told Mr. Whalley that I had come—Mr. Whalley said he was sorry to trouble us, but he wished Mr. Moyle and myself to witness his will, as he had been making some alterations in consequence of something he had heard—there was a blue paper with some writing upon it lying on a small desk—it was about a foot by nine inches; I don't exactly recollect the size—Mr. Whalley sat down and signed it on the right hand side in our presence, and passed it to Mr. Moyle, who, before he signed it, read it, but Mr. Whalley told him that it was only the attestation clause he was reading—Mr. Moyle then signed it and passed it to me, and I signed it also—in passing it to Mr. Moyle Mr. Whalley said it was not bad handwriting for an old man of his age, that his hand was getting rather shaky—it was a blue paper; neither of us read it—I signed my name and address, and "assistant surveyor"—Mr. Moyle signed it as registrar of births and deaths—we signed under Mr. Whalley's name, opposite the attestation clause, at the side—Mr. Whalley told Moyle to never mind reading it—this was in the front sitting room on the ground floor—Thomas was not present while this was taking place—after we came out Thomas wanted to know what we had been doing, and I told him we had been witnessing a will for Mr. Whalley—Thomas wanted to know the particulars, and what was in it, but I could not tell him—previously, on the 21st March, Thomas left a message for me to go to his house to sit with Mr. Whalley while he had some rest—I went to his house a little after six in the evening—Thomas's mother let me in, and I found Thomas in the house—he asked me if I would stay to mind the door, as his mother was going to sit with Mr. Whalley and he

wanted to go into the town—I told him that I would do so, and he went down the town, returning twenty minutes afterwards with Nash, whom I had only known by sight and not to speak to—when they came back I was in the kitchen—Thomas asked Nash to sit down, and he did so—that was at the time Thomas's wife was in her confinement—Thomas then went into Mr. Whalley's sitting-room and brought out some papers in his hand, and on one was Mr. Whalley's signature, and as he brought them into the kitchen he said, "I have got it all light"—he put them on the table—among the papers were some with writing on, which he had in his hand, and some with no writing at all—he said to Nash that he wanted him to copy in the writing that was on one of the pieces of paper, the writing above Mr. Whalley's signature—the piece of paper was blank and with Mr. Whalley's signature, containing only the signature and the date underneath—that was a whitish coloured paper, about 10 inches by 6 or 8, I could not say to an inch or two—the signature was not far from the centre of the paper, it may be a little below the centre—Nash then proceeded to copy the paper out—first of all he counted the lines above Mr. Whalley's signature, and then proceeded to copy it out on a blank piece of paper with the same number of lines—there were lines on the paper containing Mr. Whalley's signature—I could not say what sort of lines, I do not know whether they were blue or red—he then copied about the same number of lines on another piece of paper that there was no writing at all on, and then commenced copying from the paper that Thomas had brought, on to the blank piece of paper—there were three pieces of paper, one with Mr. Whalley's signature on it and nothing else, another with writing on, and another with no writing at all—I believe there were two or three papers with no writing at all on—I believe he copied it twice on to blank paper, if not more—then he commenced to fill it in above Mr. Whalley's signature in the paper that contained Mr. Whalley's signature alone—when Nash was engaged in that employment I believe he said something about 5,000l., and Thomas told him to go on, never mind, it would not be more than Mr. Whalley was worth, or something like that—he finished filling it in, and then Thomas asked Nash and myself if we would sign our names to it, adding that if we would do so he would give us 100l. each, and we signed our names near the bottom of the paper on the right-hand side, about three parts of the way down, or something near it—so far as I recollect I signed myself "Edward Rees, 176, South Street, Leominster," and Nash signed, "William Nash, dyer, Burgess Street, Leominster," I think—I did not read what was written by Nash—after signing Thomas asked us if we would go up and see Mr. Whalley upstairs in the bedroom, and then we could say we had seen him—we did go up and see him—I did not go into the room, I went on to the landing—Nash was just inside the door, Mr. Whalley's bed being immediately opposite the door—Thomas stood between Nash and myself—Thomas's mother was in Mr. Whalley's bedroom at this time—Nash asked Mr. Whalley how he was—he said, "Very bad"—Nash afterwards asked him if he would like to have a fish—he said "No"—I saw Mr. Whalley in his bed; he was propped up in a sitting position—he seemed to speak with great hardship—we then returned downstairs, and Thomas asked us to sit down a moment, as he expected the doctor—we sat down, and shortly after Dr. Barnett came—he went upstairs to see Mr. Whalley and returned with Thomas—I believe Thomas took him upstairs—when

they came down Thomas asked Mr. Barnett how Mr. Whalley was—he replied, "Very ill indeed, but slightly better than yesterday"—the doctor then left; I also left—this (The alleged will) is the document that was prepared by Nash on 21st March—this is my signature at the bottom, and is the one I signed on that occasion—after this transaction I saw Thomas from time to time, and also Mr. Whalley on several occasions, and I spoke to him during the month of April—I remember the day of his death—when I returned home from my journey about half-past 2 Thomas was in his garden, he called and told me of his death—Thomas also said he had made use of that paper which Nash and I had signed—I said I wished he had not done so—Thomas said I should have to stick to it, as Gunnell had taken it away, and that as long as I had put my name to it I should have to stick to it—I don't recollect anything more being said than that I wished he had not done so—I believe I saw Thomas most of that evening, he was about there—Thomas said that when Mr. Whalley died he (Thomas) had just time to take his right will out and put this in its place—he said he had found the will in an envelope in Mr. Whalley's waistcoat pocket, and steamed it open in the steam of a kettle, and substituted the one for the other before Mr. Gunnell came, and that Gunnell had been there and taken it away, and took some securities with it, I believe—I had further conversations with him about this matter on several occasions—Thomas said that the envelope was addressed, "To be opened by Mr. Gunnell or Mr. Priestman," and that Gunnell had taken the envelope, crossing out Priestman's name so that he (Gunnell) should have the sole control over it, and that if any one asked about the difference of the ink Gunnell was going to account for it by saying that Mr. Whalley had done it in Gunnell's office—he did not tell me where it was done—Thomas told me about Gunnell receiving a letter by mistake which should have gone to Mr. Green Smith, a solicitor at Leominster, and that the next-of-kin were going to take proceedings, and that if any of them came to me I was not to have anything to say to them—I asked Thomas, I could not say when, what he had done with the genuine will, and he said he had placed it in a jar in the cellar for safe keeping, and had afterwards broken the jar and burnt the will lest any one should find it—that was some time before the compromise—on one occasion after proceedings had been taken Thomas came and told me to go to Mr. Lloyd's and to make it appear that the first will was made last, to put the wills contrary, and that I had seen Mr. Whalley sign it in our presence; several things of that sort—I went to Mr. Lloyd's and made a communication to him—I and Thomas met frequently on our travels and on other occasions—we lived next door, and had many conversations on the matter—on one occasion Thomas said that he had destroyed the will, so that if any one searched the house it should not be found—he said that such things were of common occurrence, and that Gunnell had told him of one case where a doctor and a lawyer had signed a will with a dead man's hand—I recollect nothing more about that; he' was talking about this case, I suppose—I saw Mr. Lloyd twice I believe; I remember two occasions—I remember going to Hereford with him and Nash to see if it was the paper that Nash and I had signed; we saw it—Nash looked at it, and I recognised my signature—nothing further was done—Thomas said that Nash was going to say that Mr. Whalley had met with him down by

the water-side fishing, and had arranged with him to make his will, and was going to give him a half-sovereign for it—that was how he was going to account for his coming to make the will—Thomas said Nash was going to say that before the will was signed we were promised 100l. each—on the day of Mr. Whalley's death Thomas said that instead of 100l. He would give 300l.—immediately before the compromise Thomas said that if I would only stick to him he would give me 3,500l., and would not be particular to a few hundreds more if he got the money all right—Thomas said soon after Mr. Whalley's death, before I heard any talk of proceedings, that Gunnell had said there was nothing like getting the transfers done as soon as possible, so that if they got it in Thomas's name it would be nine-tenths of the battle—I remember on 10th June, 1882, the day of the compromise, going from the Strand to Westminster, where the trial took place, with Thomas alone—he asked me how it was to be; I said I did not know, I might tell the truth if put in the witness box—he wanted me to go and have something to drink and I refused—I was in Court when the compromise was arrived at; I was not called as a witness, Nash was, and Thomas and Gunnell were present in Court at the time, I believe—I saw Nash in the box and the will produced—after the compromise we all returned to Leominster—nine days or a fortnight afterwards I saw Thomas—I said both myself and Nash wanted to know what he intended doing with reference to the promise, and he said that I did not deserve any, and that he would only give 500l., and if I did not like that I could go without any—I told him no, I should not accept anything of the sort—on one occasion, I don't know if it was the first interview, Nash and I wanted to know what he meant to do about the money he had promised—he said we seemed very fast after our money and he intended giving us 500l., and if we did not like that we could go without any—I told him perhaps he would be sorry for it some day—on the other occasion he told us to go to hell if we liked—he said it was on the letter of Miss Priestman's he had had to compromise the matter, but that he would not have accepted the compromise if I had told him I would have gone into the box for him—Thomas had first said he would not give securities, and then afterwards agreed that he would do so—he asked me on one occasion if I would prepare two forms of securities for him to sign, and he would sign them—I prepared these (produced) and then afterwards he refused to sign them—Thomas came to our house, I produced them, and he said he would not sign them; he had found out that Nash was in communication with Mr. Turner—I believe he mentioned that Nash had communicated with Turner. (The security was written on paper headed "Leominster Highway District" dated July 19, 1882, and was: "7 days after date pay to my order the sum of £8.d. for value received (signed) C.D.," and across it was written: "Accepted payable at the Worcester City and County Bank." The other was an authority to the Manager of the County Bank, Leominster, to pay Edward Bees £8d., the amount for which an acceptance, dated 19th July, 1882, had hen given him.)—Thomas banks at the Worcester City and County Bank—some time after Whalley's death I recollect Thomas and I meeting Gunnell, and Thomas introduced me to Gunnell—he said "This is Mr. Bees, the man who signed the will of Mr. Whalley's"—Gunnell said he had often seen me, but had never known me before, and that it was a good thing for me that I had done so—I remember a furniture sale at the Corn

Exchange, Old Leominster; I could not say exactly how long before the compromise, I should say quite a month—I saw Gunnell there; he called me on one side and said he wanted to speak to me, and then he said he wanted me to be particular as to one point, and that was to be particular as to my seeing Mr. Whalley sign his will and Mr. Whalley seeing me sign also—on many occasions he mentioned this signing—he said it was a good thing I had come to Leominster and signed that will, that I could buy a larger house, and should be in better circumstances—just after the compromise I recollect being sent for to Gunnell's on one occasion by Nash or Thomas, I don't know which—I went and met Gunnell just outside his office door—Gunnell said "I suppose you are expecting something out of this case," and asked me if 500l. would do—I said "I don't know so much about that"—he said "You leave it to me, I will see you all right then"—shortly after the compromise I went to Gunnell's office again; he went to his safe and brought out a blank folded cheque on the Worcester Bank, signed by Thomas and Gunnell, and payable to Nash, myself, and Gunnell; he said "You see I provided for you all right before, but now the compromise is arrived at the cheque is useless"—I think that would be within a week, or about a week, after the compromise—a few days after I was sent for by some one, I don't recollect who, and I went again and saw Gunnell—on that occasion Gunnell produced another cheque, filled in for 1,000l., payable to Nash and myself, and signed by Thomas—he wanted me to endorse it, and said he would get Nash to do the same, and then he would draw the money from the bank—I refused to endorse it—a few days afterwards I saw Gunnell again at his bar in High Street, where he sells his wine—I told Gunnell on that occasion that I had never seen Mr. Whalley sign the will, and that the thing was a forgery, and that Thomas had promised me 3,500l. to swear that which was not true, and that I intended to expose the whole thing—Gunnell cautioned me, saying that it was very dangerous ground I was going upon—Thomas came in, and Gunnell told him what had taken place—he said it was a lie—I said it was not, and then left, and met Matthews, a labourer, going in—Gunnell had said that the first cheque was useless as Priestman was to act as executor under the compromise—in the latter part of July, 1882, Nash told me that Mr. Turner wanted to see me, and had made arrangements for me to meet him to-morrow—Nash said he intended to expose the whole thing so long as Thomas behaved so shabbily; but he would not tell Mr. Turner anything unless I was present—I subsequently saw Mr. Turner at Ludlow twice—afterwards I saw Thomas, who said that if we would have nothing to do with Mr. Turner he would give security for 1,000l. at the Worcester Bank, and that Nash had already accepted it; Mr. Bowen, the bank manager, was to have the security—I refused to do so—I knew that Nash had told Mr. Turner particulars of the case, and I intended to follow it on—Thomas said "You can do as you like; don't make a fool of yourself, we are three to one"—he knew I had made a statement to Mr. Lloyd—about 10th or 12th August I asked Thomas what he intended to do with respect to the 3,500l. he had promised—he was in his garden, which is next door to mine, and we were in the habit of talking over the fence—he said he would do the same with me as he had done with Nash, giving me security from the bank 1,000l.—I said I should not accept it, he having acted in the way he had done, and I believe I said I should tell Mr. Turner—he said I might tell him what I liked

—Mr. Turner came out then and said "You have no need to send him to me, Thomas, I am here already, why don't you pay the money you promised?"—Mr. Turner then said something about pencil writing and Indiarubber, which annoyed Thomas, who threatened to strike him—at that time I had not given the details of my statement to Mr. Turener, out I did so in November or December following, in writing—I afterWards went to my solicitors with my brother-in-law, Mr. Dowding.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. In September, 1880, I was in respectable employment in Leominster under the Highway Board—I was bound to have a respectable character to get there—I was not particularly intimate with Mr. Thomas up to April, but when he obtained the appointment of museum inspector we became more intimate—we had never spoken till November—on the occasion of the forging of the will I did not know what a will was; to the best of my knowledge I had never seen one—I did not think whether it was an honest or a dishonest transaction—I did not ask why I was to have 100l. for signing my name—I now know it to be a forgery—I have come to the conclusion that Thomas asked me to sign my name thinking I was a stranger just come from the country and knowing nothing of such things.

By theCOURT. I signed my name to another will shortly after; Mr. Whalley said it was his will—no one offered me 100l. them.

BySIR H GIFFARD. I saw Mr. Lloyd in August following—I know I told him some lies, statements that I now swear to be lies—I don't recollect whether I told him that Mr. Whalley had the will in his hand; I said that he asked me to sign it, and I gave a particular account of what had taken place in his presence—I went to Mr. Lloyd twice to give particulars—I was in the Probate Court when the will was proved, and heard. Nash swear to it—that according to me was perjury—I told what I now say is the truth because I was sorry for what I had done, and because Nash had told the whole story to Mr. Turner—I cannot say the date that Nash told me to go to Mr. Turner—I had asked Thomas for the securities he had promised, and he said he would give them me another time, and once he told me I might go to the devil—it was after that that I made the statement to Turner—I did not tell Thomas that unless he gave me money I would state something that would upset the will—the compromise was on 10th June, and I believe I first communicated with Turner or Child at the latter part of July—neither Pritchard, Child, or any one made me any offer of advantage, money or money's worth, to tell such a story as I have now told—I never san a form of this sort, "I hereby authorise you to pay to Thomas Rees the sum of blank, &c."—on one or two occasions I had a conversation with him—he told me Mr. Turener had understood that Thomas had promised us large sums of money, and if we had any securities he would take them to Thomas and see whether he could not stoop it out of Thomas's 17,000l.—I have a brother-in-law named Dowding; I did not know that he was in communication with Mr. Child, or that he brought any message from Mr. Child—I cannot recollect all that passed, and I have no knowledge of it—I believe Mr. Child mentioned 3,000l. to me; I cannot say when, but it was between June and October—Child must have said it to me first—I can't say whether I

told Mr. Child before September 5th that I wanted 5,000l., and that if I got it I would make a written confession and sign it, I think not—I did not mention 3,000l.—he was telling me what he had heard I was promised, and asking me if it was so—I cannot say what answer I made—I did say in an affidavit that I made the statement without hope of fee or reward—Mr. Turner told me that they had a very strong case against the will, and that it might be a very serious thing for me if they proceeded without me—I first told Mr. Turner what Nash had told me some time in July when I asked for the 5,000l.—Mr. Turner knew from Nash that the letter had been used for the purpose of writing a will over the signature of Mr. Whalley—there was bad feeling between me and Thomas, showing that he did not care about me, and he insulted me in the March following—there was not bad feeling between us particularly till I made the affidavit at the end of October or the beginning of November—I don't remember Child telling me Mr. Turner had been in Scotland, and had some valuable information, as Mr. Whalley had some friends there—I had not several appointments with Mr. Child about the end of September which I failed to keep—I say I had none—I remember an appointment for myself and brother-in-law to meet on 14th October at the London Road, Manchester, at 8.10.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. I have not asked Mr. Gunnell for money or securities for money—I know John William Davis, of Leominster, and Mr. Cane, who lives near there, and Mr. Bassett, a miller, and Mr. Robert Hill, of Hyde Ash—I have not spoken to Mr. Bassett or Mr. Hill about the making of the will—I have spoken to the others about the will of March 21st—in speaking to them I adhered to the statement that the will of March 21 was the true will; that was before the compromise—Thomas said if any inquiries were made by the next-of-kin he was going to explain the matter by the difference in the inks—I believe I have heard him say in Mr. Justice Manisty's Court that the handwriting was erased by Mr. Whalley in his office, but except in Court I have not heard Gunnell make that statement—he did not go into the box at the time of the compromise—I have seen Mr. Lloyd several times at his office in reference to the matter, but have not asked him for or to obtain for me money or security for money—he did not say to me on July 10th, 1882, "Get out of my office, if you have no regard for your own honour, have some for mine"—the two interviews I have named with Gunnell in his office were the only ones at which money or security was offered; the first was at the end of July or early in August—he then produced a cheque on the Worcester City and County Bank—I don't know, but I believe that was the bank where the executors opened an account—it was signed by Gunnell and Thomas, it was not crossed—I did not say at that interview to Gunnell "If I cannot get any money off" Thomas I will have it off Turner," or "I want to take a farm and I must have money" I am sure I never said "I do not mind if I get 15 years for it"—nothing of the kind took place—the second interview was, I believe, in the end of July—the cheque was then filled in for 1,000l., and not crossed—I don't know that I wanted money at that time, but I asked for the money Thomas had promised—I refused to endorse the cheque, as Gunnell wanted to draw the money in his hands—I did not ask him to allow me to cash it—I don't know that I was in a hurry, but it is so long since—there was no quarrelling—I did not say to Gunnell "If I can't have the

money off you I can have it off the other party, and I shall get it," nor did he say "Get it and go to the devil;" nor did he then go to the door, take hold of the handle, and say "Get out of my office, you d—d scamp;" nor did I say "I am not going to be put off, I will have something"—I believe the interview at the bar was early in August—I did not say to Gunnell at that interview "You had better come with me to Mr. Turner and settle the affair;" nor did he say "What have I to do with Mr. Turner? go yourself if you want to go"—Thomas came in at the end of the interview, and I said that he had promised me 3,500l.; he said "You are a liar"—I did not say "You did, and I will have it, or else I will have the shirt off your back, if I get into gaol for it."

Re-examined. At the time I signed the document I don't remember a word being said about it being a will, but when I witnessed the other document Mr. Whalley asked me to witness his will.

HENRY GOODIER TURNER . I am a solicitor, and a member of the firm of Rayner and Turner, of Manchester—our firm acted as solicitors for Mr. Priestman throughout the whole of the proceedings—I was first introduced to him by Messrs. Sale and Co., solicitors for Mr. John James Whalley, the nephew—I believe the proceedings commenced by the citation of 13th August, 1881, and the writ of the same day—my firm entered the appearance for Priestman—I had not the conduct of the matter then; I think my partner had—I believe I began about the time that the amended statement of defence was put it—on the day of the compromise it was arranged that I and Henry Priestman should have an outing from Saturday to Monday at Leominster and Hereford—we drove from Hereford to Leominster on Saturday in a four-in-hand, stayed there some time, and then drove back to Hereford—as we drove from Hereford to Leominster we passed Thomas's house, and as we passed Thomas put a paper to the window; flourished a paper about—Priestman made some observation about it—we came back from Hereford to Leominster, and while there saw Joe Nash, the prisoner's brother—he made some communication to me then—I also received a letter from him of the 1st July, 1882—it was Joe Nash that first aroused my suspicions—I had an interview with Joe Nash before I saw Child—I saw Child as the result of the interview with Joe Nash, and had some conversation with him—I received this letter (produced) from Thomas Nash, of 5th July, commencing "Mr. C. read over your letter to me"—Mr. C. means Mr. Child—I had written to him before I received this from Thomas Nash. (This stated that Mr. C. had read Turner's letter to Thomas Nash, and that Nash was now fully convinced that Thomas wanted to do loth him and Meet out of what he promised, and that he would like to see him (Turner) at any place he liked on Saturday, and suggested Shrewsbury or Chester', and requested that if he wired he would do so at Mr. C.s that he would not mention his (Nash's) name in the telegram; and that he would like the interview to be alone, although Joe wanted it otherwise, he probably having an object in view; regretted that he did not avail himself of Mr. Turner's offer when Mr. P. first mentioned it; and stated that he had seen Mr. Turner's note to Joe, but had told him nothing he had heard from Mr. C.) Mr. P. is Samuel Pritchard, the railway agent at Leominster—I wrote to Joe Nash in consequence of this letter—I saw Mr. Pritchard at the same time that we went down on that journey with the brake—I received this letter (produced) from Nash suggesting a meeting between myself and him—I don't think I wrote in answer to

that—I met a brother-in-law of Rees at Crewe, along with Mr. Pritchard, and I sent a communication through Pritchard to Thomas Nash; that was after I had been in Leominster with the brake, and after the letter of 5th July—in consequence of that letter of 5th July I met Thomas Nash in Shrewsbury, at the George Hotel—I spoke to him about what his brother had said—I said his brother thought he had some money coming from Thomas, and he said he had, and he said that he was afraid Thomas was going to do him out of this money, not going to pay him, and he said was it true what I had said to his brother Joe, and I said it would depend—I said "You have some thousands to draw from Thomas"—he said "Yes"—I said "Your brother says 5,000l."—he said "That is so"—I said "Your brother said he is for doing you out of it"—he said "I think he is; he has been treating me very shabbily in London; I have come to see whether you will stop it me out of the 17,000l. that is coming to Thomas under the compromise; my brother said you will do"—under the compromise Priestman Was an executor, and admitted the Probate as well as the others, so that the money could not pass without his being a party to it—Thomas had 17,000l. to draw under the compromise, and Nash wanted to know whether I would stop the 5,000l. that he was to have from Thomas out of the 17,000l., and I said that would depend upon the security or authority that he brought me; I said that if Thomas owed him or had promised him 5,000l., and he would bring me sufficient authority from Thomas to say that I might pay him out of the 17,000l., I would see if I could do so; I said "Have you any security? what hold have you on Thomas for the 5,000l.?" and he said he had not any security, but the money was as much his as Thomas's; I asked him how that was, he was not mentioned in the will; he said "It does not matter," or words to that effect; "the money is as much mine as his, it is a swindle"—I got some paper to reduce the statement into writing—he told me the same statement that he had made in the Probate Court, about the making of the will as if the will had been made in proper style and order, and as if Mr. Whalley had made the will under the ordinary circumstances; he said that on the 21st March he made this will for Mr. Whalley, and that he and Rees witnessed it for Mr. Whalley—I said "But there was no swindle about this, Nash"—I was expecting every minute that he would have told me something—I said "He has no reason to give you 5,000l. for this"—he said "It is no use; I need not tell you, but I will tell you, and he burst out laughing: "that was the tale I told in the Probate Court; it passed muster there, what do you think of it?"—"Well" I said, "you weren't cross-examined"—I tore up the statement that I had written down, and threw it in the fire—we then went from the hotel for a walk in the Quarry, a little park at Shrewsbury; I there pressed him to tell me what the swindle was; he said "Practice makes perfect, I will tell you when I bring Rees, I won't tell you now"—he said Gunnell and Thomas would secure Rees, and he would tell nothing till he brought Rees, that he had been in the witness-box and sworn it was a genuine will, and he would not detail how it was done till Rees was there—that he would bring Rees in a day or two to meet me, and I was to stay in the neighbourhood—I believe he said Rees could not get off his work that day, or he would have come with him—I think the interview at the George, Shrewsbury, was on 8th July; the letter was on Saturday, 5th, I got it on the Monday, 7th, and this was the day following—I can give you the exact date from the

hotel bill—I said, "Is the will a forgery?" and he said "Oh, no, it is not a forgery, it was not done in that way"—I don't think anything more of importance passed then, he promised to bring Bees and we were to have another interview—I believe I gave him half a sovereign for his fare or something like that on that occasion, beyond that I did not give him a farthing—Rees did not come to me the next day—I next saw Thomas Nash at Wolferton, I think, a few miles from Ludlow and five or seven from Leominster, at the Solway Arms; I think that was 11th July, I can't say from memory—Child, the Hereford stationmaster, came with Nash—I dare say letters had passed between me and Child between the 7th and 11th—I would not like to say they had not—there had been some communications between Child, Pritchard, and myself; I had seen Mr. Pritchard at Shrewsbury—Child said when he came with Nash, "I have brought Nash and he has resolved to make," I think he said, "a clean split of it, to throw himself unreservedly in your hands, he will tell you all about it"—Mr. Pritchard at that moment, I think, came to the door of the room and joined them; Nash said "Not quite so, in reply to what Child has said I will see Mr. Turner alone," and he asked that Pritchard and Child would leave the room—I asked them to do so, and they accordingly left the room—when Nash and I were left alone in this room at the Solway Arms, Nash said it was a serious case, and he did not want any one to hear our conversation, and he looked under the table, which had a cloth on it, and looked behind the fire screen at the other end of the room to assure himself no one was in the room—when he had assured himself that he was alone with me in the room, he said he had been deceived by Thomas, and he had been in very straightened circumstances, and had a large family, and he had fallen into temptation—I pressed him then as to how it was done—he said that on the 21st of March, the date of the alleged will, Mr. Whalley was very ill in bed, and wanted Mr. Priestman to come and see him, and he told Thomas to write for him; that Thomas accordingly wrote for Mr. Priestman a letter in pencil, and took it to Mr. Whalley, in bed, to sign, and gave him a pen, and Mr. Whalley wrote his name in ink, and seeing that the date was not in, put the date under the signature, March 21st, 1881; Whalley, seeing the letter was in pencil, asked where the pencil was before he signed it; Thomas said "Here is a pen, the point is broken," and the old man took the pen and wrote his name; that Nash and he afterwards took the pencil letter with the ink signature downstairs and rubbed out the pencil writing above the signature—I asked him what he had rubbed it out with, and he pulled out of his pocket a small piece of indiarubber, and said "With this"—I saw that the piece of indiarubber was new, and said "You don't mean to say with that actual piece," and he said "No, of course not, but a piece like this"—he said they got some paper with similar lines and size to this one that had the signature on, and had been the pencil letter, and that he and Thomas began drafting out forms of wills;. that when they had got one that they thought would about fit in above the signature, he (Nash) began filling it in on the top of the paper with the signature on it, and that when he got a few lines down the paper he was spreading it out too much, and he consequently had to cramp it a little in the centre; I think two lines—he said "Have you noticed the two lines a few lines from the top, about the centre?"—he said he was over-running his tether,

and spreading out the writing, and he asked if I or the solicitor representing the Whalleys had noticed the cramping, and I said "No"—he said "No; well, we were afraid that you would notice it;" that he was to have for filling it in and attesting it 5,000l. from Thomas—he said after they filled in this will they got Rees to sign his name as an attesting witness along with Nash, and I asked him what Rees was to have, and he said he was promised 3,000l.—he said would I pay him out of the 17,000l., the money was as much his as Thomas's, and if I did so Thomas would not object, but if he did object he never durst inquire into it—I asked him what proof there was that his statement now was true, and he said that if I looked at the will I should see the cramping—I said well, I could not pay him on a statement like that, but that he must get me some authority from Thomas, and that I would see what could be done—I think he said there was some grease on the table that got on the paper at the time, some small slight grease he said there was somewhere about it—I don't think he mentioned particularly when the filling-in was done, but from what he said I understood it was on 21st March or about that time—I believe it was all on the same day—I asked him if it was true, and he said it was—I said it was an extraordinary statement; it had best be put in writing—he said he should not put it in writing without I gave him the 5,000l., or rather stopped the 5,000l. for him out of the 17,000l.—I said I should like to see Rees, and hear what Rees had to say—he said Rees could confirm his statement, and he said he would bring Rees some day—on another occasion he brought Rees—on this day Nash and I were alone; it was before tea; I think Child went back—I said to Pritchard at the door, when Nash was in the room, "Don't go away; I shall want to see you after I have seen Nash"—Pritchard returned—I think I had tea alone with Nash—I don't think Pritchard was there then—he returned in about an hour after the interview commenced—I think we were about an hour talking it over, and then Pritchard stopped a few minutes I think, and then went away, and then I think Nash and I had tea by ourselves—Priestman returned to Leominster, I think—Nash went back, I think, and I stayed the night at Ludlow—he said if I would pay him the 5,000l. he would make an affidavit of the fact, and then he said Thomas could not dispute it; that would verify it at once—he called "If you will stop the 5,000l. out of the 17,000l. I will make an affidavit of it, and then if Thomas says anything about it you can show it him—the next day I was at Ludlow, I think I saw Nash and Rees; I think that would be 12th July—this was at the Feathers Hotel, where Nash and Rees came together to me—it was a very short interview; I think Nash introduced me to Rees—I don't think I had spoken to Rees only on one occasion before, and we were strangers I might say—I said "Well, Rees, is it true you have 5,000l. to come to you out of the 17,000l.?"—he said "Nash said you are going to stop his, will you do mine at the same time; will you stop my 5,000l.?"—I said "Have you any security or anything to show what was the hold you have on Thomas for the money?"—he said he had no security or authority from Thomas—Nash was present at the time; I said "You had best see Thomas and get a written authority from him, and then I will see what it is when you bring it to me"—I wanted to get a written statement from him—he said "Yes, I will, and I will see you again in a few days"—I think that was the last interview I had with Nash, although I have seen him casually—I saw Rees again at Ludlow

and on several occasions—on one occasion I saw him there with Child and Dowding, Rees's brother-in-law—I went for a walk with Rees towards the Castle, that would be July or the beginning of August, I think—Rees's statement to me as to the circumstances of making the will was reduced into an affidavit Rees made—I took the statement down in October, that was the first detailed statement he made that I got in writing—Rees gave me no detailed statement before October; I made one to Rees—I went to Rees's house on 12th August—Rees was not in then—the door was open, I stepped inside and took a seat—Rees came while I sat there; he had to come through the garden—Rees's and Thomas's houses adjoin each other, one standing at right angles to the other—as Bees came through his garden Thomas was in his, and saw Bees coming—Rees said to Thomas "I want to be straightforward," or words to that effect; I cannot give the exact words "What are you going to do?" Thomas said, "Don't be in a hurry, I haven't drawn you," or "Don't be in a big hurry, I haven't taken you"—Rees said "What are you going to do?"—Thomas said "I have got to let you know I have to get the lot; I will give you 1,000l."—Rees said "I shan't take it; I was to have 3,000l."—Thomas said "Is not 1,000l. enough for signing your b——name?" I believe he said—Bees said "I shan't act the scamp at that price"—then some few words passed, I think they were saying something about preparation, I didn't quite catch that, and then Rees came into the house—I said "You had better finish your conversation with Thomas"—I had a few words with him—he said to me" You say you won't pay me"—he went out then, and Thomas and Rees got quarrelling, and Rees said to Thomas "I will go and see Turner"—Thomas told him he might go to hell if he liked—I stepped from behind the door and said "You have no need to send him, Mr. Thomas, I have heard it all"—Thomas flew into a temper, and cursed me, and I came away.

The will, which was put in and read in the course of the case, was as follows:—"This is the last will and testament of me, James Whalley, of 128, South Street, Leominster, in the county of Herefordshire (gentleman). First, I give, devise, and bequeath unto Henry Whalley Priestman, of 27, Bateman Street, Derby, clerk, five thousand pounds (sterling), which is a portion of my estate. Secondly, I give, devise, and bequeath to my friend Charles Thomas, of 128, South Street, Leominster, the remainder of my estate, of which I may be possessed or entitled at the time of my decease, all according to the nature thereof, and effects whatsoever of every description whatsoever, real and personal. I direct that all my debts and funeral expenses are paid as soon as conveniently may be after my decease. And I do hereby appoint the aforesaid Charles Thomas, and Henry Whalley Priestman, and Edward Gunnell, wine merchant, Leominster, to be the executors of this my last will and testament, hereby revoking all former wills. And I give and bequeath unto the aforesaid Edward Gunnell one hundred pounds for his time and trouble as one of the executors. In witness whereof I have hereto set my hand this twenty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one. Signed by the testator, James Whalley, as and for his last will and testament, in the presence of us present at the same time, who in his presence at his request, and in the presence of each other, have hereunto set our names as witnesses. James Whalley, March 21, 1881." "Thomas William

HENRY GOODIER TURNER (Continued). In the conversation with Thomas over Rees's garden fence he said he had got a letter of Child's, and he showed it to me; it was doubled up; he pulled it out of his pocket and said "Here is a letter of Child's, that will do for him"—it was an ordinary letter—he asked me tauntingly "Would you not like to have that?" and he showed me some other letters; he pulled out a few of them altogether, out in a lot—I went away shortly after—I came back to Manchester, and then I went to see Mr. Charles Russell and lay the circumstances before him—I first heard about the pencil marks, at Wolverton, at the Solway Arms—that was when Nash told me how the will had been written over the pencil letter; that was the first intimation—I had seen the will before that interview, at the Probate Registry at Here-ford—I think I saw it altogether three times; I think twice before the interview I have spoken of—that was in the presence of the officials of the Registry—I can't say who was present; I did not know the people there; there were two or three of them there—I have since ascertained one was Mr. Lane—I went purposely to inspect the will, on 1st or 2nd November I think.

ByMR. ANDERSON. I am referring to some notes which I had during the last trial; they were put down during the trial.

ByMR. DANCKWERTZ. I was sent down to Hereford to see the will—I saw the Registrar and told him the purport of my visit, and asked to see the will—that was Mr. Earle, and Mr. Lane was there—I was not alone with the will, there were three officials there—I found what I thought was cramping in the middle of the will, as Nash said I should find, and on a careful examination I found what I thought, but I cannot swear to that, but what I considered was a little grease spot, that he had mentioned before; it was very, very faint indeed; you could only see it by holding it up to the light—I saw some pencil marks, but we could not make them out—I could make a few out at the bottom, just like letters and portions of words—in the beginning of November application was made for a new trial—after that I, as Mr. Priestman's solicitor, commenced an action to set aside the compromise, against Thomas and Gunnell, and to bring the will to London—the action was tried before Mr. Justice Manisty; it commenced on 14th November and lasted twelve or fourteen days.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. I have a diary; I think there will be entries in it of the interviews with Nash and Rees, but I was at Leominster at that time, and it would be entered when I got back—my diary is not here, it would be at Manchester—I don't think I have seen it for months—the statement Nash made to me was put in my proof for Mr. Charles Russell's brief for the Chancery proceedings—that would be prepared perhaps six weeks or a month before the trial in the Chancery Court, in Queen's Bench—I think those two exhaust all the written material of all that Nash told me—I have been a solicitor since 1877—I thought Nash's statement an important one—he would not let me write it down; I wanted to take it down, but he would not let me—it did not occur to me to write it down as soon as I parted from him—Bees first made the statement

to me as to the mode in which this fraud had been committed, at Ludlow about the end of July, about the 27th—I told Mr. Child of it long before that; I mean Nash's statement—I told him of Rees's statement as soon as I told anybody; I have no doubt of that—I first became acquainted with Mr. Child in the spring of 1882—I had heard of him through Sale and Co.—I first became acquainted with him by going down to Leominster in the spring of 1882—I was passing under my own name; my partner passed under another name for one or two visits; his name is Robert Hyde Bayner, and he passed by his second name of Hyde—I have got an account of my expenses at Leominster; I have it not with me; it would be in the bill; the bill is in preparation—I have my hotel bills here—I have an account of the money I propose to charge my client with for my visits to Leominster; it would be in the bill—I was aware twelve months ago of the importance attached to the amount of money I had spent in Leominster; you asked me about the amount at the last trial—I have an account of it; I can't say what it is; it will appear in the bill; the bill can be here; it will be made out; the materials of it are at Leominster; I can have it here by tomorrow morning—it will appear in the ledger—I could not say how many visits I paid to Leominster; it was a good many—you may say I was in Leominster most of my time from January or February, 1882, up to the trial, up to the compromise—I was very often there up to 10th June, 1882—I did not go into Leominster after the visit on 17th June for a few weeks I should say, and then I kept more in Ludlow and Shrewsbury; then I went down often after—I did not know anything of Bees only by sight till Nash brought him to Ludlow—I had only seen him on one occasion—I was at Rees's house one evening; that would be before the compromise; I went with Mr. Neale; I cannot fix the date; I should think it would probably be three months before 10th June; I would not pledge myself, about two months probably—I called one forenoon and asked if Bees was at home; Mrs. Bees said "No," and I sat down on the stairs, as I was tired; I then went away—I cannot give the date of that; it would be a few months before the trial—I first heard of the letter to Emma Priestman when we went to demand the will—that would be in April I fancy; not as to the letter, but Priestman said "I think my sister has a letter of my father's, because she told Gunnell she knew the money was mine; how she came to know it I can't say"—Henry Priestman wrote a letter to me on the subject—I telegraphed for that letter yesterday, and we have not found it; we have it not—it did not occur to me "till yesterday as important to have the letters; that I swear—I did not bring up all the papers connected with this case; there are three boxes of them—I brought one box—I don't think I have any entry in my diary of the receipt of the letter from Henry Priestman; I can't say from memory—I first saw that letter the first week in May, 1882,1 think, the 6th—the compromise was on 10th June—we went to Leominster on the 17th, and stayed from Saturday to Monday or Tuesday at the Royal Oak—before leaving, in consequence of what Nash had said I directed Mr. Child to open communication with Bees, to give me, if he could, some information about the will—I don't think it would be as to Bees; I think it would be as to Nash first—after that I did not go to Leominster for a few days; the letter from Joe and Thomas Nash came in the meantime, and I went down after—before leaving Leominster on the Monday or Tuesday I can't

say whether I had given directions to Mr. Child as to opening communications with Rees, but I will say as to Nash, and I believe as to Rees—I believe as to both—I said that I had been informed that Rees and Nash had some large sums of money to draw from Thomas, and I said I was inquiring into the matter, and if Mr. Child saw Nash, and I believe I said Rees too, he was to inquire whether this was true, and I believe I told him that if they got security I would see about whether it could not be stopped out of the 17,000l. from Thomas—I think that would be about all (it was Joseph Nash who told me that these men were to draw large sums of money); that was the only offer I made—on 26th June I received a letter from Mr. Child; I have the original here. (This letter was read; it referred to several persons under the initials P., D., G., N., L., and T., which the witness explained as meaning Pritchard, Dowding, Gunnell, Nash, Lloyd, and himself.) After hearing that letter read I pledge my oath that what I have described was the only offer I made—my offer was that if they brought me an authority or anything to show that Thomas was paying them, and that they were to have so much out of the 17,000l., I would stop that money out of the 17,000l.—they had not received the money—the arrangement was not to ascertain whether Mr. Child had received the money, and if he had I was to get a receipt; that could not be the way; it is utterly impossible—they were to get an authority from Thomas, and if they brought that to me I was to see whether I could stop it for them out of the 17,000l.—the 17,000l. was coming through my hands—I expected that it could not go into any one's hands without my knowledge—the Tom referred to in the letter is Thomas Nash. (A letter of 28th June, 1882, from Mr. Child to the witness, was read.) I can explain what the words "I cannot understand your generosity" mean—when Nash had spoken to me as to these sums of money he said "We are afraid Thomas will do my brother out of the money"—I said "If your brother comes to me in the evening with the authority, he cannot do you out of the money, because I will stop it out of the 17,000l.; a month or two will not make any difference to us; if they receive the 17,000l., and if you get an authority from Thomas, I will pay you out of the 17,000l."—that is what I understand the letter refers to. (Letter of June 29th, 1882, from the witness to Mr. Child, read; also one of 1st July, 1882, from Mr. Dowding to the witness; also one of 2nd July, 1882, from Mr. Child to the witness; also one of 4th July, 1882, from the witness to Mr. Child.) The interview with Thomas Nash at the Oak was some three months before the compromise—Mr. Neale was present; we three alone—I did not take down anything he said then; he did not tell me anything of importance—he spoke about Mr. Whalley fishing, and bits of things of that sort, but nothing about the will—it was about 7 in the evening—he was with me an hour or more—he had, before that, had an interview with Mr. Neale—I did not give him champagne; I swear that—Thomas and Gunnell watched Nash wherever he went—Nash had a private interview with Neale—he did not want it to be known that lie had seen me—when he came to the Oak he went away quietly, and when he was arranging for another interview I pointed out, as we had had an interview with Nash, it would never be known, and no advantage could be taken of it; if we told any one it might have got to Thomas's ears and Gunnell's, that we had been speaking to Nash—Mr. Pritchard agreed that if he ever got a chance he would see what Nash could say, and try and get any information out

of him that he could—Nash had been in Pritchard's employ, and he was certainly friendly with him, and I said "If ever Nash says anything to you, you can see what he knows"—Mr. Pritchard had had one or two interviews with Nash, and I think he had got Nash to say he should come and see me, I could see how Mr. Pritchard was playing his cards—I told Child and Pritchard that they must not bring Nash, because he would get dubious, and suspect that we were trying to get at the object that this 5,000l. had been paid for—Thomas had had a row with them the night before, and he was wanting the 17,000l. in cash—I wanted to convince Dowding that Thomas was intending doing Nash out of the money, and I wanted Mr. Child to point out more bits of odds and ends in that direction—I was under the impression that Gunnels and Thomas were joining in this affair, I thought Gunnels was to have 8,000l. out of it. (Another letter of 4th July from Mr. Child to the witness was read, enclosing a note from Nash; also one of 6th July from Mr. Child to the witness; another of 9th July to same, referring to a telegram; another of 17th July from same to same; one of 18th July from witness to Child, containing the words: "If he knew what I know he would not sleep in his bed"—that meant that if Thomas knew what Nash had told me about this pencil letter being rubbed out and made into a will, he would not sleep in his bed—they kept promising to come, and never came, and I wanted to see them, and wanted to get something in writing—I did not intend these letters to be shown to them; Child and Pritchard had seen them, and I wanted to get confirmatory proof from them in writing; that was the reason I wrote the letter so emphatic (Parts of this letter were underscored many times, and it contained the words "if they only saw what is now before me")—I think that would be some letter of Child's, or something he had written; I cannot now remember what; it might be some Counsel's opinion—the matter would be laid before Mr. Middleton, to ask what we were to do, and he said they must be corroborated, and I fancy I must have been referring there to some opinion—I was told that some agreement had been entered into with Nash, an agreement of 1l. a week, and I wanted Mr. Child to get that if he could. (Letter read of 19th July from Child to the witness.) The Mrs. Ovens referred to in that letter was some friend of Mr. Child's, and I think he got her to pump Mrs. Rees, to make inquiries through her—these people had to be approached in any way we could to get information. (Letter read of 20th July from the witness to Child, containing the words, "Let them fix their own terms, only tell them not to be extravagant")—they said they were promised this money; I said "Reduce it into writing, or bring me the authority from Thomas for you to receive it"—after that they said what would I give them for the statements, if I would not give them the 5,000l. and 3,000l., or whatever they had been promised; what would I give them?—I said "Let them fix their own terms, for if I said any tiling about them they might suspect me and go back; "that was why I wanted them to fix their own terms—I wanted them to make an offer for their information. (Copy of letter read of 20th July from Child to witness, and reply of 21st July; also letter of 25th July from witness to Child, and one of same date from Child to witness.) An interview took place with Rees I think on 27th July—that was the interview I spoke of yesterday when Dowding and Rees were there, when he told me it was a swindle—I satisfied Rees and said, "Let the cat out of the bag." (Letters were

here put in from Child to Turner, dated August 4th and 20th, 1882, September 5th, from Turner to Child, September 7th, from Child to Turner, September (4th, from Child to Turner, and September 16th, Turner to Child.) I saw Counsel, I cannot say when, but I saw Mr. Russell at Liverpool Assizes—I went up to Scotland and saw Mr. Middleton, I think it was in September, and I think he went to Canada in September—he is a Probate man, and had been one of the Counsel in the case—I think the phrase, "You had better go into Court with clean hands," was mine, not Mr. Middleton's—I prepared Rees's affidavit in the Probate Court; it was written straight off—the original is filed—I was down at the Royal Oak, and I wrote it straight off, including the passage, "not influenced by any hope of reward"—I intended him to swear that, and he did so. (Letters were here put in of October 17th and 19th, October 25th, 26th, and 27th, and November 2nd, 1882, between Child and the witness.) I think I went to Hereford and examined the will—Rees did not tell me anything more than what Nash had done, except his relationship with Gunnell and about the cheques—Rees always professed to know a great deal; he never told us anything till he made a bold confession, which I took down in October—the principal features were detailed by Nash at Ludlow—I examined the will through a magnifying glass in the early part of 1882, perhaps some three months before the compromise—I wondered whether the signature was genuine, and one of the officials handed me a glass—I might have held it up to the light and pointed out a grease spot, but I don't think I did—I took a tracing of the signature on some tracing paper which one of the officials handed me—that tracing was shown to Mr. Chabot on his behalf, I believe—Mr. Chabot made a written report on that letter for us only—I was examined in 1879, and the verdict was not in our favour—I do not know that I was disbelieved, but I was defeated, and it was appealed against.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. Our firm were first employed by Mr. Priestman in August, 1881—I was assisted in my investigations by Child and Pritchard, but I do not think Dowding had anything much to do with it, except indirectly—I also received information from many other persons—Messrs. Sale and Co., of Manchester, were employed on behalf of the next-of-kin at the Queen's Bench trial—after the compromise I did not instruct Messrs. Sale and Co., in January, 1883, to make an offer of 1,000l. to Gunnell—I could not instruct the opposite side solicitors—I served my articles in Mr. Sale's office—this letter is Mr. Lloyd's writing—I cannot say that I was a party to that offer—Messrs. Sale were contemplating making an offer to Gunnell and Thomas, in order to avoid the expense of a long trial—they said that Gunnell and Thomas were entitled to 1,000l. under the real will, and it would cost a great deal to try the issue, and sooner than be at the trouble and expense of a long trial they would give them 1,000l. each, and they made the offer strictly without prejudice—I cannot say whether the offer was refused, because they have had several interviews, Mr. Lloyd acting for Thomas and Gunnell—it was suggested that it should be left to Mr. Russell and Sir Henry James and Sir Hardinge Giffard to say whether they should have a farthing or not, and I think it fell through—when I examined the will through the glass I did not see any pencil marks—I saw it twice before the compromise, but did not see the marks—I did not see the pencil marks till I went down purposely to look for them, after being told by

Nash—Thomas and Guimell watched Nash after they knew he had been to see me, and I saw Gunnell watching Nash—I watched too—they never left him, and they did not leave me very often—I dare say Mr. Child was watched also—I cannot say whether almost every person in Leominster, men and women, took an interest in the case—I have heard the expression "Gunnellites," but not "Turnerites" before to-day, though I had a lot of friends there—I was examined at Bow Street as to the interview I had with Nash at the George Hotel, Shrewsbury, on July 7th, and said" Thomas said, Nash would not have had a penny but for him, and the money was as much his as Thomas's"—he said Thomas was the scamp in the transaction, in the play—I said to Nash I had been thinking Gunnell was the scamp in the play, and I was mistaken—I said that, and I said "I had the saddle on the wrong horse, I thought Gunnell was the deepest in the transaction"—he Bald that Thomas had some Caledonian Bonds, and Gunnell wanted some of them, and that Gunnell had asked Nash to use his influence with Thomas to let him have them—I saw Nash again at Wolverton on 11th July—I said at the police-court "I asked whose invention it was, and told him it was a cute plan; he said Whalley was a cute man, but Thomas is a cuter, Thomas will be too cute for Gunnell'"—I think "Too many for him" were the words—it might have been in the autumn of 1881 that my partner went down to Leominster under the name of Hyde—he would not go to see Mr. Gunnell under that name—after he had been there a time or two he went to see Mr. Gunnell—that was at the commencement of the proceedings—it was before January, I think—he would not see Gunnell in the name of Hyde, because he would give him his card and tell him who he was—I have no recollection of saying to Nash "I can settle matters with you and Thomas, but not with Mr. Gunnell"—I don't think I did—I have no recollection of making such a remark or words to that effect—I could not say if after the compromise any money could have been drawn out from the bank except the cheque received Priestman's signature—Thomas and Gunnell had proved the will—Thomas and Gunnell were executors, and till Priestman had proved he had no locus stands—after the compromise, and after Priestman had taken probate, it would have been a proper business course, and the ordinary course, for Priestman to sign, and I think they would have then required the signatures of the whole three; I should have done so—I don't think I gave notice to the bank on the compromise, because if I had it would have aroused suspicion—I know Gunnell's politics by repute, he is a Conservative, and at the last election acted as Mr. "Rankin's agent; that was in 1880.

Re-examined. I said to Nash "Who is at the bottom of this?" he said "You put it on Gunnell's shoulders," Nash said that Gunnell had a finger in the pie—on the 16th May, 1882, or about then, I received this letter of 19th April from Emma Priestman; I and my partner did not keep that letter, it was sent to the agents and to the other side—subject to its being inspected we kept it and produced it in Court—as soon as we got the written information we sent to Bates and Stewart, Lloyd's London agents, and an information was made of the discovery—I remember this letter to Child of 25th May, 1882, I think my partner wrote it—I saw it at the last trial. (This was from Rayner and Turner to Child)—I think it was taken by Mr. Rayner to be shown to Child—I never had a written report from Mr. Chabot, I called and gave him a guinea,

I sent him a tracing I had made from the will that had been proved, and some letters written by Mr. Whalley, amongst others that of the 19th April—the question was whether the signatures to the letters were the same—at that time we were investigating the question whether the signature "James Whalley" to the will of 21st March was a genuine signature, that was before the compromise, when we were oppossing the will in the first instance—after I heard Nash's story I was sent down to look at the will, and I observed some pencil marks on it—I did not make those pencil marks as seems to be suggested, I found them, I made no pencil marks.

GEORGE CHILD (This witness subpoena to produce certain documents and papers and letters was read). I am stationmaster at Leominster, I knew the late Mr. Whalley, the defendants, and Rees—Thomas was a foreman porter under me till the end of August, 1880, when he was removed to Helsby—he returned to Leominster in about a month—Mr. Whalley, the deceased, was in the habit of coming to the station almost daily to fetch his newspapers, and on those occasions I frequently conversed with him—I should think sometimes Mr. Priestman was mentioned between us—Mr. Whalley sometimes showed me letters from Priestman—I understood that he looked upon him very affectionately—Mr. Whalley never mentioned Thomas except once, when an allusion was made about his wife—he spoke very highly of Mrs. Thomas, and said that Thomas did not behave well to her—shortly before his death Mr. Whalley mentioned to me that he thought of removing from Thomas's—on the morning of May 7th, 1881, the day of Mr. Whalley's death, I saw Gunnell at the station at about 12 o'clock, he came up the drive leading to the station, and I had a conversation with him, he said Whalley was dead—I said no—he said it was true, Mr. Whalley was dead, and he had left Thomas all his money; he had then the will in his pocket, which he was going to take to his solicitor at Hereford—I said" He has never left Thomas all his money"—during the conversation Thomas was coming out of the town—Gunnell saw Thomas, and moved away, asking me not to say anything to Thomas about what we had been speaking about—Gunnell went on the platform—afterwards Thomas came up, and repeated that Whalley was dead—I said I had just heard it from Mr. Gunnell—Thomas made some allusion to the money having being left to him—I said "Never"—Thomas went on the platform—I don't know what became of him—Gunnell went to Hereford by the 12 o'clock train—that afternoon I saw Gunnell again—I think it would be nearly four, no passenger train had come in between his departure and arrival, a goods train had gone through—I attended Mr. Whalley's funeral, walking with Mr. Moyle, and in coming back we had some conversation about a will—about a week after I again saw Thomas at the station; he had some accounts of the funeral which he showed me, and told me he had been settling those accounts himself; if there was anything to remain he thought that he was entitled to it, he must have it—he said Mr. Whalley had left his adopted son a legacy, a legacy to Mr. Gunnell, and the residue to him—I told him I did not believe it—he told me what took place after Mr. Whalley's death, I believe that same day; he said that the first thing Gunnell did when he came into the room was to pick up a letter which contained a cheque for a large amount, and on the table was a watch which he put into his pocket, he then asked for the will, which Thomas said lie had got

downstairs, and of which he (Thomas) was desirous of having a copy before it went out of the house—they went downstairs, Gunnell consented, and Thomas took a copy—Thomas then asked Gunnell to leave Mr. Whalley's watch, as it was intended for his (Thomas's) little boy—Gunnell took the watch out of his pocket, put it on the table, and left the house—on a Sunday in August, 1881, Gunnell came and took a ticket to Berrington, and invited me to go with him—he wanted to speak to me about the Whalley property—Gunnell said there was plenty of money in it—I said, "None of mine"—he asked me if I had seen Mr. Lloyd—I said "No"—he asked me if I would see him—I said yes, if Mr. Lloyd asked me himself—the train came up and Mr. Gunnell went on—I saw Mr. Lloyd on the following evening about 7 o'clock—Mr. Lloyd got very angry, and I left—the following day I saw Mr. Lloyd, Nash, and Rees go down to Hereford—three weeks, or probably longer, after the compromise, when Mr. Pritchard was there, Nash came to see me, and wanted me to write to Mr. Turner for him—I refused, but offered him Mr. Turner's address—Nash said he did not quite care about posting a letter to Mr. Turner, as it might come to his brother Joe's ears—I said if he wrote it I would enclose it for him, if that was all—Nasli brought me a letter in the evening, which I posted; it was in an envelope, I believe this is it. (This teas the letter of 25th July from Nash to Turner; the envelope was put in)—Nash said that Thomas was behaving very shabbily towards him when he said he wanted to write to him—I don't think the envelope was fastened when I got it—he proffered it to me to look at, I did not—I enclosed it in one of my own and fastened—he told me he said in it that Thomas was behaving very shabbily to him, and he wanted to communicate with, Mr. Turner—he said he had stated that in his letter—I got a reply from Mr. Turner, which I read to Nash—I do not remember what was in it—I have not got it; all the letters written to me by Turner were destroyed from time to time as I got them—at that time Nash said Thomas was behaving very shabbily to him, and that he could not get his money—Nash said on one occasion after the letter that he had been promised 5,000l.—I said it was a very large sum—on several occasions I asked him if he had any security or any written promise from Thomas for these sums—I remember being at Wolferton when Nash and Mr. Turner were there—to the best of my belief I said that Nash had come to place himself, I think I used the word unreservedly, in Mr. Turner's hands—Nash said, "No, not exactly that, "I believe that it was not fair, there were three to one—Mr. Turner asked me to go out of the room, and I went straight home, leaving Turner, Pritchard, and Nash there—before that Nash had asked me to make an appointment for him with Mr. Turner—I believe he mentioned two or three places; Shrewsbury was selected—I think he told me then he was going to see Mr. Turner on the subject of the will—I cannot say whether he mentioned the word "swindle" on that particular occasion, but he has mentioned it as a swindle on several occasions—I asked him how it was a swindle—he was guarded in his replies, he did not tell me—after Nash's return from Aberystwyth he said he would not have anything more to do with Mr. Turner—I said "Why?"—he said he had arranged with Mr. Lloyd, or something to that effect—Mr. Gunnell and several members of his family went by train to Aberystwyth—Thomas and Nash went in Thomas's trap; I did not see them start—

it is about 80 miles from Hereford to Leominster—Nash said he was not going to have anything more to do with Mr. Turner because of seeing Mr. Lloyd; he said Mr. Lloyd was a gentleman, he would be well looked after if he would only stick to him, or something to that effect—in May, before the compromise, I received a letter, I think from Mr. Hyde (Rayner), which I have destroyed with the others—I believe he said if I was on the platform on the arrival of the 10.35 from Salop the writer would show me a letter—I don't know the date of that—I was on the platform; I am there every day—I saw Mr. Hyde, and he showed me a letter—this (produced) is it, to the best of my belief—he asked me if it was Mr. Whalley's writing and his signature. (This was the letter of 19th April, 1881, from James Whalley to Emma Priestman)—I said I thought it was—I say now what I said then; it is, as far as I can recollect, Mr. Whalley's writing—I believe this is the letter I was referring to just now (This, a press copy of the letter of 25th May, 1882, from Rayner and Turner to the witness, was read.)

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. I have incurred no expenses in what I have done in this matter—I have been at one or two public-houses from time to time—I have been at the Solway Arms and at the Feathers Hotel; I don't remember being at the Royal Oak—I was willing to do anything I could to help Mr. Turner—I assisted him according to his requests all that I could—I was not ready to do anything discreditable for him, nor anything that was not honest and straightforward—I am quite sure that was always my state of mind while I was arranging this business and seeing these people. (The learned Counsel read to the witness a passage from his letter of 23rd July, 1882.) I did not think there would be anything discreditable or dishonest in giving Rees money, I thought Mr. Turner might not like to give Rees money, and I would give it to him—I should not have told anybody afterwards—that was if Rees's statement should be in accordance with what I had been led to suppose it was—I was going to give him what Mr. Turner should mention in his letter—I had been told that 3,000l. was to be given to one of these men and 5,000l. to the other—I understood from Mr. Turner that he would have stopped out of Thomas's money as much for Rees as he would have got from Thomas if he gave Turner a statement that showed that Thomas had no right to the money—I offered Rees that if he brought a signed statement from Thomas of what he had promised that I would send it to Mr. Turner, and Mr. Turner said that he would stop it out of Thomas's money—there was nothing very generous in that, in stopping it out of the money going to Thomas (The learned Counsel here read to the witness part of the letter of 28th June containing the expression: "Mr. Dowding says that your offer is so good that he really cannot understand your generosity.")—I don't know what generosity Dowding saw in it, but I suppose he meant Turner was to stop it without any trouble to Rees—the words in the same letter "If he agrees to accept your money" mean that was for telling Mr. Turner how he came to attest the will; if Rees agreed to accept 3,000l., I suppose from Mr. Turner, Mr. Turner said he would stop the money—the offering to accept your money I still say refers to Mr. Turner's generosity in stopping the money that was going to Thomas—I swear that it refers to that—I have no doubt about it—at no time during these negotiations with Rees did I give him to understand that he would get money from Turner without reference to the stoppage of Thomas's

money, I swear that positively, at no part of the time—Mrs. Ovens formerly kept a small inn in the town; she has now retired from business, and now lives in a cottage in South Street, where she lived in 1882—I suppose she lives on the little money she has—I don't know—she is a friend of mine—I did not employ Mrs. Ovens to get into communication with Mrs. Rees—I asked her to do so—that would probably be in July or August—I requested her to ask Mrs. Rees what amount she had really been promised by Thomas—Rees had told me that he had been promised a large sum, and I asked Mrs. Ovens to inquire of Mrs. Rees whether that sum of 3,000l. was really right—I first heard of the 3,000l. from Rees a short time after the compromise; I could not fix the date—I never reduced that statement of Rees into writing—I told Mr. Turner, in writing to him, what was transpiring, but I did not reduce that statement to writing—by what was transpiring I mean what were the results of our interviews at night—I told him that Rees had been promised 3,000l.—Rees had told me so—I don't know whether I put that in writing; all I have put in writing is there in my letters to Turner—all I wrote is in my letters to Turner—that was about all my request to Mrs. Ovens—I think I suggested to her that she should point out the advantage it would be to Mr. Rees to come over to the side of truth and justice and to make a statement—I don't know now whether she agreed to take that duty upon her; I can't say whether she did or not—I don't recollect whether shortly after Turner left Leominster I saw Rees; perhaps a week after I saw him—I believe I told him that Nash had been to Mr. Turner—I was told so by Mr. Turner—this was after the compromise on 10th June, within a week after Turner had left Leominster—after Mr. Turner left, on the Monday or Tuesday, I saw Rees, about a week afterwards—it would be the 26th or 27th June—I told Rees that Nash, meaning Joe Nash, had seen Mr. Turner in the town, and told him how Thomas was treating his brother, and that he would not be likely, he thought, to get a penny, and that Thomas was behaving very shabbily towards him, but that if he (Rees) held any security of Thomas's, Mr. Turner said he would try to make him act honestly towards him—I forget what Rees's reply was, but I think he said that Thomas had not then come home, but that he should go to him as soon as he did, and see what he would do—I cannot call to mind all that was said at that interview—I know Rees went long before Thomas came back—I saw Mr. Turner before he went away, and he told me what Nash had told him, and he said if Rees would produce any written document from Thomas as an authority for paying him that money he would keep Thomas up to his word, or something like that—I think Rees agreed to do so—he did not quite tell me that he had any Written authority at that interview or afterwards—I forget what answer Rees made. (A letter of the witness, dated 26th June, 1882, was read, in which he stated that he had done all he could, with the assistance of Mr. Pritchard, to bring Rees into a proper state of mind to accept the offer, and that he thought he had succeeded.) I meant by that that Rees consented to accept the offer—Mr. Pritchard had seen Dowding and Rees, and told them what I believed Mr. Turner had told him had been said to him by Joseph Nash, which was, I understood, that Mr. Thomas was behaving very badly, and would not pay him—Mr. Turner, I believe, told Mr. Pritchard that if Nash and Rees had this written security from

Thomas, and if he would bring it to him, he would see that they were paid; that is what I meant by Pritchard's assistance—I heard about the security from Mr. Turner; he said if there was any security, and if they would give it up, that was the same offer we were talking of just now that astonished Mr. Dowding by its generosity—I remember receiving from Turner the form which I was to show to Rees and Nash, "I hereby authorise you to pay Thomas Nash," and so on. (This was a letter dated 25th July from Turner to the witness.) I should be sure to show that to them if Mr. Turner asked me to do so; I don't remember if I did—it reads as if it was to go to Mr. Lloyd; the authority to pay is addressed to Mr. Lloyd—I first heard of pencil marks on the will, it would be a day or two, or perhaps two or three days, after I had been to Wolferton at the Solway Arms—I believe Mr. Pritchard told me first, I would not be positive upon that. (A letter of 5th September from Turner to the witness was read, enclosing another letter for the witness to show Rees, in which was the following sentence: "They can't quite understand the increase, and don't quite believe he can give such valuable information as he pretends.") Rees had mentioned that he had not seen Mr. Whalley sign the will on 21st March, and that he had seen Mr. Whalley sign a will at a later date with Mr. Moyle, and Rees said that the sum of 5,000l., which had been promised to Nash, he was quite as much entitled to as Nash—I think that was what brought the large sum of 5,000l. up—at that time I believe that was all I knew that Rees could tell. (The Counsel read the conclusion of Turner's letter of 5th September, and the enclosure to be shown to Rees.) I showed that to Rees—I have no doubt I acted in pursuance of the other directions in the letter; that I asked him to write and say if 5,000l. was the lowest he would accept, and whether he would swear to his statement for that sum, whether he would warrant his statement to be of such vital importance that Thomas would lose his 17,000l.—I impressed on him how strong the case was, and that Mr. Turner would proceed either with or without him—I believe I said Dowding wanted to make some money of the case—I faithfully carried out the instructions received in that letter—I forget what Rees said—I wrote it down to Mr. Turner as far as I recollect. (The Counsel here read Child's letter to Turner of 9th September.) "Could not get him inside "means could not get him inside the house—he had been in the habit of coming to my house—"He would just as soon tell you all about it without any consideration as have the money, "that was what Rees said, and all that he said—I should tell Mr. Turner all that he said—he said that if he got 1,500l. He would swear to the statement—I can't say if there is any more correspondence, I have not got any. (Counsel read a passage from Turner's letter to the witness of 16th September: "I have all along impressed on you the importance of making no offer to Rees and Nash for their evidence, as I have repeatedly told you such evidence is useless.") I understood it to be an offer of money to Rees for his evidence—it was as to making an offer for their evidence only on a guarantee from Thomas—that might not be expressed, but it was so. (The passage from the letter of 21st September was read: "Is Mrs. Ovens working with us? I hope so. Do not let her get any of our writing.") I could not say Mrs. Ovens was working with us; I could not say she was not—my daughter was in the habit of going to Mrs. Nash's a good deal; I did not send her there—I did not instruct my daughter to try and persuade Mrs. Nash to persuade

her husband to make a confession, nothing to that effect—my daughter might have seen a letter which I believe came from Mr. Turner—she is 23—I did not employ my daughter in this transaction; she saw a good deal of Mr. Turner's letters; she had access to all my letters—I dare say she was aware of how Mrs. Ovens was working with me; I would not say she was not; I could not say, I think she was—I am not aware that my daughter said that she knew perfectly well that if a statement was made 5,000l. would be paid down directly—I never heard that before, not that I recollect; I could not swear positively I have not—I am quite certain my daughter did not come back and say she had made such a statement to Mrs. Nash; she did not tell me that—she used to go up to Mrs. Nash with dyeing; Mrs. Nash dyed our wool and different things—I don't think on any occasion she has stated what she said to Mrs. Nash as to a statement to be got from Mr. Nash; I could not swear she did not—she was aware 5,000l. had been promised him—I would not swear she was not aware of a sum of 5,000l. to be obtained through Mr. Turner if a statement was made by Nash in writing—I swear I never had a conversation with her on the subject, not to my recollection—I should not have sanctioned my daughter going to Mrs. Nash about this, and should have been very angry—I could not say whether I did hear it from her or any one; I cannot remember—I had one or two letters from Dowding, which I sent to Mr. Turner.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. At the time of Mr. Whalley's death I was on friendly terms with Mr. Gunnell; I was not on friendly terms with him at the end of 1882—I think after Gunnell came down in August, 1881, he did not speak to me but very seldom—I am sure I was on friendly terms with him before August, 1881—after the death I did not speak to him because he did not come and speak to me; it had nothing to do with this case—I don't think I spoke to him after August, 1881—at the time of the death I was on intimate terms of friendship with him, but afterwards, from August, 1881, we did not speak—there was no ill-feeling on my part towards him—I was in partnership with Mr. Davis as coal merchants; some disagreement occurred between us, and two arbitrators were appointed, I appointing Mr. Gunnell as mine and Davis appointing Mr. Bowden—this was in January or February, 1881, before Mr. Whalley's death—several meetings were held, and a preliminary award was made in 1881 by Gunnell and Bowden, by which book debts were to be got in and liabilities discharged—I refused to let that be acted upon—I was dissatisfied with Mr. Gunnell because he insisted on my partner's son collecting the book debts, and I wanted a solicitor—owing to this at the time of Whalley's death we always spoke and said "Good morning" when we met, but did not enter into conversation—I took no note of the conversation with Gunnell at the railway station on the day of the death—I only had two conversations with him; I took no note—I don't think there was anybody else present at the other conversation between us—Mr. Gunnell said he had got the will in his pocket and was taking it to his solicitor or a solicitor, I would not be quite clear which; in my opinion it was to his solicitor at Hereford—I know Mr. Gunnell has had business transactions with Mr. James Corner at Hereford; I don't know if he was his solicitor or not—I think as the train moved away Mr. Gunnell said something about not repeating our conversation to Thomas, but I won't be

sure—I gave at Bow Street everything that I recollected at the time in connection with it. (The passage about Gunnell's telling the witness not to mention their conversation to Thomas did not appear in the depositions)—my deposition was read over to me; I signed it as correct—Thomas said the cheque Gunnell picked up was for a large sum, I believe he did mention 86l.—Mr. Gunnell did not tell me at the railway station that he was going to Hereford to take a cheque for 86l. to the National Provincial Bank; he did not mention the cheque or the bank, I am sure of that—I said to-day that Thomas told me that Gunnell asked for the will and that Thomas said he had got it downstairs—I will swear Thomas did not say that Gunnell asked for the will, and that they took it downstairs where he had got a pen—I believe the words were that he had the will downstairs—I cannot swear that the words were not "They took the will downstairs"—I did not go to see Mr. Lloyd, he came down to the station to see me—after I said to Gunnell that if Mr. Lloyd desired to see me I would go, I think he repeated the question "Will you go to his office?" and that I said "No"—I have never been to see Rees or Nash at Turner's request, they came to see me—I would have done so—I was on friendly terms with Turner; I was not on friendly terms with Gunnell, we only said "Good morning" as we passed—I should not have gone to see Lloyd at Gunnell's request if I had been on the most friendly terms with Gunnell—I can give no reason why—I have been stationmaster at Leominster for perhaps twelve years—I know Gunnell has gone with his family to Aberystwyth; I could not say every year; he has sometimes gone to Chester or Holyhead places—he has gone every year to the seaside with his family.

Re-examined. I was friendly with Mr. Whalley while he lived at Leominster—I believed he had made a will, I saw what I thought was it, and I had seen the letter he wrote to Emma Priestman dated 19th April—my object in going into the matter with Mr. Turner was that I thought the thing was a swindle, and I went into it with Mr. Turner in Priestman's interest and Mr. Whalley's, to carry out the intentions of Mr. Whalley's will—when I first mentioned in a letter I knew about 3,000l. that might possibly be paid to Nash and Rees, that was to be paid by Thomas; it was to come out of his money—I could not say out of whose pocket the 5,000l. I wrote about in September was to come—no money was to be paid by me to Rees unless on Thomas's written authority to Rees and Nash on Thomas's account.

By theCOURT. I had a good deal of trouble about this—I have not been paid anything for my trouble; I have never been promised anything—I have no recollection of Turner writing in one of his letters (That of 21st July) that my pains shall not be forgotten—I had no promise or expectation of getting any money.

SAMUEL PRITCHARD . I am district agent for the London and Northwestern Railway at Leominster, and have been in their employment for something less than twenty-seven years—I have been acquainted with Gunnell for twenty years—on one occasion I was left to act with him as co-executor to somebody's will, but I did not act—the day after Mr. Whalley's death, 8th May, 1881, I saw Gunnell in his shop, where I went and asked him if it was correct that Mr. Whalley had left Thomas 12,000l.—Gunnell said "Yes, over that. You know I have bought that place at Kingsland. I thought of asking you to lend me the money to pay for

it; now Mr. Whalley is dead I shall never want to borrow of you or any one else again"—I said "Had Mr. Whalley any relatives?"—he said "Yes"—I knew nothing about who his relatives were—I think he mentioned nephews and nieces—I think nothing more was said then—on the Tuesday after, the day of the funeral, I saw Gunnell again—he said "What did you think of it to-day?"—I said "What?"—he said "Oh, have you been out of the town to-day; why, we buried old Whalley to-day—I said "What! already?"—he said "Yes; he will keep better underground; if the old man knew what a fuss we had made of him he would be coming back again"—I said "Did any of his relatives come over?"—"No," he said, "and we did not want them; he never cared for them, nor them for him," or something to that effect—I think nothing was said about his will at that time; I think something was about his money—I think I mentioned 40,000l., and I think he said "Considerably over that," and "he has left me a fortune"—I think I then said "You are both right then," or words to that effect, meaning Gunnell and Thomas—I think nothing else was said at that time—I had another conversation with him about the first week in June; the conversation about Wilks was after that, I think—I think it would be the 4th June—I saw Gunnell at his office—I have nothing to refresh my memory by—I made notes of it, but I don't know where they are now—I have looked for them—I saw them last about the autumn of this year, when giving my statement to Mr. Birch—when I saw Gunnell on 4th June, at his office, I said to him "I thought you told me Mr. Whalley had left you a fortune?"—he said "So he has"—I said "You are only left 100l. in the will"—he said "Pray, who told you that?"—I said "The man who made the will"—he said "Who made the will?"—I said "Tom Nash"—he said "Tom Nash made Whalley's will! Whalley's will was made by a solicitor, and Mr. Whalley has left me a lot of his best securities"—I think he said about 10,000l.—I said "Well, it rests with Thomas whether you have them or not; it is not mentioned in the will"—he replied "You do not understand me"—I said "No, I do not, if that is the will"—I think that was all that was said at that conversation—nothing was said about the form of the securities or where they were—at one conversation in June I asked Mr. Gunnell something about the amount of money, and about Mr. Whalley's relatives—I said "People are warning Thomas to be careful of you," and that Thomas should see he would take good care that Gunnell did not have the handling of the money—he said "Oh, Thomas says that, does he? Thomas would not have been in it if it had not been for me"—I said "If Mr. Whalley's relatives find out that their uncle is dead and left all this money they will be trying to upset the will"—he said "They cannot do it; I am the only person as can upset the will"—I said "How, if the relatives cannot upset the will, can you upset the will?"—he said "I have a document in my possession that will do it"—he was very excited, and said "I have a document in Mr. Whalley's handwriting; where will Thomas be then? you see him and tell him that"—I said "I will try to see him"—it was on a Saturday night; I did not see Thomas—that was all the conversation at that time, except that he said this was the second railway man he had got a fortune for, or something to that effect—I think that was on the same date, the 4th June—after that we had a conversation at Gunnell's shop door in the front of his shop—he

said "Do you know how I found out that Mr. Whalley was wealthy?"—I said "No"—he said "It was Jimmy Wilks told me; I always had my eye on him after that time;" Gunnell said that—Jemmy Wilks is the tax collector—I do not think I remember any other conversation prior to November, 1881.

Thursday, November 27th.

SAMUEL PRITCHARD (Continued). At the time I saw Gunnell, in November, proceedings had been threatened—I saw him then in his office; that is a different room to the shop; they are in different houses—I don't know whether I or Gunnell mentioned the case, but I think Gunnell did—I said "You don't think Thomas will ever get that money, do you?"—he said "He has got it"—I saw him again in December the same year, at his office—he said "Have you ever told Child anything more about Mr. Whalley's will?"—I said "Why?"—"If you have, tell me," he said—I said "I don't think it worth while us talking about it; if you have you ought to tell me, seeing what friends we have been for years "—I don't think there were other occasions when I saw him and he spoke about the will—I saw Thomas Nash some time about the middle of June, 1881, I think, at my house—Nash worked for me—I told him that Mr. Turner had said he had had a conversation with his (Nash's) brother Joe with reference to the will case, and from that conversation he suspected something wrong; that Joe Nash had told him that his brother Tom had been promised a considerable sum of money—I am talking of after the compromise, when Mr. Turner came to Leominster—it may have been 1882; it is so long ago that I am rather confused in the date—I saw Nash also in May or June, 1881—we had a conversation I don't recollect just now—he was working for me in 1881 or 1882—he said "You have heard the news, I suppose, about Thomas dropping into all Whalley's money?"—I said "Yes"—Nash said "Do you know who made the will?"—I said "No"—he said "I made the will"—I said "Gunnell is left a fortune too, is he not?"—he said "He is only left 100l."—I said "I do not think Gunnell would ever have had anything to have done with it, because Mr. Whalley could not bear Gunnell towards the last"—I had no other conversation with Nash till after the compromise, and then we had the conversation that I have stated, about the promise of money—he said that his brother Tom had been promised a large sum of money, and "as Thomas Nash works for you you might ask him if he holds any security for the money promised"—I told Nash that that was what Mr. Turner had said to me—Nash said "I have no security"—I said "You told me that you held a security"—he said "I was to have it in writing before I went up to give evidence"—he did not say from whom he was to have it; he had told me that on a previous occasion—he was at my house pretty well daily—I think it must have been after I went to London about the compromise—he said "I am to have a security given me in writing in London; Gunnell put me off until the morning that I was put in the witness-box, and then there was no time to give it me, as I was hurried into the Court, and I did not get any security"—he said "I have been promised 5,000l."—I said "I heard that you had been promised 6,000l."—he said "No, not quite so much as that, but Thomas did promise to give me 5,000l. more"—I said "Now, if you had got anything in writing Mr. Turner says he would see if he could stop it out of Thomas's 17,000l."—he afterwards showed me a letter—it was given to

Mr. Childs to enclose to Mr. Turner; that was in my presence—I can't say the date; it was some few days after the first conversation I had with Nash, after the compromise—he was writing to Mr. Turner to ask him if he would appoint some place for meeting—I heard that Nash did go to Shrewsbury—when he came back he told me he had seen Mr. Turner, and had given Mr. Turner a statement, and that Mr. Turner wrote it out, but he told me it was not a true statement, and it was torn up—he said it would not do for him to tell the truth unless Rees was with him; the whole thing was a swindle; he was going to take Rees with him to Shrewsbury next morning to see Mr. Turner, when they would both give him a correct statement as to how the will was made—(this conversation took place at the George Hotel at Shrewsbury)—he saw me next day, and told me that Rees could not go to Shrewsbury; that it was on a Saturday, and that was Rees's pay-day for paying the men—I think I saw him some few days afterwards—he was going to meet Mr. Turner at Ludlow; but I don't know much about the journeys to Ludlow; I was not with them—I saw Nash on several other occasions, and had conversations with him about Thomas, and about the sums I have already, business—Nash came to my house two or three times a day.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. I have known Nash for twenty-five or thirty years, and been on friendly terms with him during that time—I have never been in his house; he has frequently been in mine—that would be from 1880 to 1882—I knew him when he first came to Leominster; he was then a boy—I do not remember his being married; he was married in Shrewsbury—I saw Mr. Turner about the time of the compromise—I had seen him before, but not to know him, nor to have any conversation with him—I swear I never had conversation with him before the compromise; it might have been at the time of the compromise, just about the time, never before—the compromise was in London on 10th June, 1882—I had seen Mr. Turner before that at Leominster, but never spoke to him; I swear that—I saw him about the town; I met him in the streets—I never went to the Oak Hotel, where Mr. Turner was staying, till after the compromise—I have known Childs for some time—I had spoken to him about this matter before the compromise—I did not know that Mr. Turner was then in communication with him—I did not know Mr. Turner then, only by sight, not to speak to him—I don't think I had seen him before the compromise in conversation with Childs; I will swear I did not—I don't know that Mr. Turner was constantly at Leominster before the compromise—I tell you I did not know him only a few days before the compromise, not more I think—this was how it was that I just knew him by sight: Nash was at my house working one night; his daughter came to the door, he went out to speak to her, and when he came back, in about half an hour, he said he had only been as far as the White Swan, that Turner was there, and he said "We have been pelting him with eggs; they ran him in at one door and out at another"—I was rather anxious to know Mr. Turner after this, to see what sort of a man he was, and went to see him go off by the mail-train—he was in the booking-office, but I did not see him then to know him—I can't say exactly when I first saw him to know him, but it was some time after that, I think it would be some short time before the compromise—I think the first time he spoke to me I was going by train—he said "Do you know me?"—I think it was about three days before the compromise—

something has come to my mind that I recollect now—I never had any communication before the compromise from Child, Turner, or any one with reference to the mental condition of Mr. Whalley when he made his will—I don't recollect it—Mr. Gunnell told me they were going to try and prove the old man insane; that was the only communication—I don't recollect having a communication from Child on that subject before the compromise—I will not swear I had not, because we were seeing each other daily—I was constantly at the station, but I was not on speaking terms with Child, only on business—only Mr. Gunnell spoke to me about it—I don't think I spoke to Nash about it before the compromise—I don't recollect it if I did; I would tell you if I could, I don't want to keep it back—I had a lot of conversations with Nash, but I don't recollect any about Mr. Whalley's state of mind—I did not say to Nash that if he would go over to the other side, and say that Mr. Whalley was not of sound mind at the time he made his will, he could have 1,000l.—I never said or thought of such a thing—I am quite positive about that; he did not tell me that everything was done correctly and honestly; he told me it was a swindle—he did not say that the will was made perfectly honestly—before the compromise Nash told me why he did not put his own name in the will, because he could not be a legatee and witness the will—I remember that perfectly well, because it made a great impression on my mind; I thought it very strange; that is the only thing I recollect about that time—I was seeing Nash every day, and heard so much about this case, that I was perfectly tired of it—we might have talked over about the will—we did talk it over—I never mentioned larger sums than the 1,000l. that he might have, never 2,000l., 3,000l., or 4,000l.—Q. How came you to speak to Mr. Turner before the compromise?—A. He served me with a subpoena, and that was in pencil, he brought it to me as I was getting into the train; I knew what Mr. Gunnell had told me, but I was not with Mr. Turner or any one connected with it, because I would not have anything to do with the case—the first time I ever saw Mr. Turner was when he served me with the subpoena, that was the first time he ever spoke to me, and that was on the Tuesday before the compromise—I was going out for the day, and he jumped into the train, or to the door with me, and gave it me, it was in pencil, he pushed it on me and said, "Now it will be all right"—I said "You could serve it on me when I return home"—that was at the carriage door—that was the first time I had any conversation with him or spoke to him in any shape or form—I have, I think, told all that passed at that time—the first time after the compromise that I saw Mr. Turner was, I think, on the Sunday night or Monday morning—I can't give the date, it was in June—I believe it was in the street, at my house door, about two minutes' walk from the Oak; I think he must have known Nash was working for me—he did not come in—I must have been at the door, I think it was in the evening, but I can't recollect now; he said from a conversation he had had with Joseph Nash, Thomas Nash's brother, with reference to the will case, that he suspected something wrong, for he had told him that his brother was to receive a large sum from Thomas, and if I would ask him whether he held any security; I said I would ask him—that was about all that passed between Mr. Turner and me at that time—he did not instruct me at all, but when Nash came to my house, would I ask him if he held any security—he did not say anything to me about approaching Rees—I don't

know when I was first spoken to about approaching Rees—I don't know that I ever spoke to Rees but once about the case—Nash spoke to me first and asked if I knew Rees was going to be taken with him—I can't say when I was first spoken to about approaching Rees for the purpose of getting any statement from him—I believe Child said that he had seen Rees—I don't know that Child asked me to go and see Rees; if he did, I did not go and see him—no one asked me to go and see Rees; I met him in the street, and I may have spoken to him; I don't know if any one asked me to see Rees, I don't know if Childs asked me—I never went to see him, I met him once at the station—I never went to his house—yes, I went to his house when he was ill in bed, and saw him—I can't give you the date for that, it was some time after he had seen Mr. Turner; he had given Mr. Turner a statement, that was after the compromise—I did not go and see him about this matter, I never mentioned the matter to him in his house, he was too ill to be spoken to—my wife never carried any message to Rees, she took a note to Nash—I was constantly seeing Child at the station every day—I have seen some of the letters he has received from Mr. Turner—I never had anything to do with getting any statements from Rees or making him an offer of money, security, or anything of that kind—I knew nothing about it—I knew that he wanted money for the statement, what he had been promised—I knew nothing about any negotiations about getting him to give evidence—I had nothing to do with Rees at all, I have never asked any other person to see Rees—I have never spoken to Mrs. Ovens about it—I know Mrs. Ovens very well—I never asked her to see Rees—Child, myself, and Rees had a conversation at the station—I can't tell the date, it was some time after the compromise, about ten days—I think Rees had met Mr. Turner, and something was said about getting Rees to come to give his statement—it was some time after Nash was seeing Rees for some time, it was in Child's house—I and Child were in the house together when Rees came in, it was not a meeting by appointment—I don't recollect now what the conversation was; it was something about whether Mr. Turner could pay him if he gave this security that he had been promised by Thomas Rees was asked to make a statement—he mentioned the conversation about what Mr. Turner could give him for his statement—the only assistance I gave to Child was the interview I have spoken of.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. I do not know that I have taken so very great an interest in this case; perhaps I have since the compromise, not more than an ordinary witness; a great interest if you like; have it your way—the conversation in Child's house was between Child and Rees; I spoke occasionally—I took notes of the conversation I had with Gunnell—I took those notes about the time that we had the conversation—the first week in June, 1881, we had the conversation, and I took the notes down I think about 21st or 22nd—that was before any proceedings by the next-of-kin—I took the notes from a conversation I had with Mr. Wallis, a solicitor of Hereford, who was at my house on 21st June; I took them after he left, I don't say the same day, it might have been the next day—Mr. Wallis had been talking with some friends before I arrived about the large sum of money left to Thomas; it was the talk of the county—Mr. Wallis said "From what you tell me something will turn up out of that matter"—I understood him to mean litigation, and he said "I would take a note of that if I was in your place," and I was very sorry that I did take it afterwards—I took it for the purpose

of refreshing my memory; I did not know whether Mr. Wallis would have mentioned it or not—I have not seen those notes for some time, I can't say when; I thought nothing about it until the proceedings were taken; in fact until the arrest of the prisoners; it might have been in 1882—I was subpœnaed as a witness in the Probate Court, but I was not called; in fact I did not come—I saw these notes before that; I had them then—I was also subpœnaed to give evidence in the action in the Queen's Bench—I saw them before that trial; that was last year—I refreshed my memory by them previous to that trial—I don't think I saw them after the trial—I looked for them when Mr. Birch first called on me, and I found this one in pencil referring to a conversation with Nash at Mr. Lloyd's—I was questioned by you at Bow Street about the notes I took of the conversation with Gunnell—you said "Have you got those notes?"—I said "I have not"—I have looked for them since, but did not find them—my first conversation with Mr. Gunnell with reference to this will was on the Sunday night after Mr. Whalley died; he died on the Saturday I think, and this was on the Sunday night—I know Jemmy Wilkes by sight; he is a tax collector—I have not seen him since I have been in London—it was not at the first interview that Gunnell told me he had been left a fortune; he said he should never want to borrow money again of me or any one else—it was on the second occasion that he said "He has left me a fortune"—in the conversation on 4th June he said "Mr. Whalley's will was made by a solicitor," I am quite sure of that—I knew that Nash had been a solicitor's clerk—I told him that Tom Nash told me he had made it—I swear that, and he was very much surprised; I can see him now in the office, because he was in a passion to think that Nash had told me—I will swear Gunnell did not say that the will was made by Tom Nash, a solicitor's clerk—I took a note of the conversation when he said he had a document that could upset the will—I thought that conversation very strange—I had not the curiosity to ask him what the document was—I have written out a will myself, copied from another, and have been executor to a will with Gunnell on a previous occasion—I have very little knowledge on the subject; I did not act with Mr. Gunnell at that time because he produced another will after the testator was dead—I don't think I am so well up in law as to know that the only document that can upset a will is a subsequent will—I know that a subsequent will, if properly made, will upset a previous one—I don't know that the document Gunnell referred to was a subsequent will; I did not know what it was; I can't say what I thought about it at the time—I thought it was extraordinary; something came up in my mind; I began to think something might be wrong in this—I thought in my own mind that I wished I had not had this conversation with Gunnell, because it brought a thing into my mind—I did not know what document he referred to, because he produced a will after the testator was dead in another will case, and I could not understand that, and I thought this was not altogether square—there was a man named Jeremiah Lockett, of Leominster, who met me in the town one day and asked me would I be executor to his will, as he thought of speaking to Mr. Gunnell if I had no objection to that gentleman, I said "Not in the least, "I believe Mr. Moore, the solicitor, made the will for Lockett, leaving me and Gunnell executors—when Lockett died I went to his house—I believe Gunnell was there, or he came in—Lockett's step-daughter wanted to know where she

should get some mourning from—Gunnell would not make her any answer—she was repeating her question, and I said "You had better go to Mr. Graves, the draper, and get something in reason; don't go to much expense"—Gunnell tapped me on the shoulder and said "Come outside with me"—I went outside, and he said "You know you are not executor in this will"—I said "How is that?" "Oh," he said, "Lockett has made another will; I am sole executor"—I said "I am very glad to hear it, then I shall have nothing whatever to do with it"—he said "Oh, I must ask you to act with me"—I said "You know I can't act with you if I am not mentioned in that will as an executor"—he said "I shan't take 'No,' you must act with me and walk with me next to the corpse at the funeral"—I said "I might walk with you to the funeral, but I shall not act in any way; I am very pleased that I have nothing whatever to do with it"—about four to six months after that he met me in the town and said "I want to have a little conversation with you; what shall we do about Lockett's will?"—I said "I have nothing to do with it"—"Oh," he said, "but about proving the first will"—I said "You can't do that; have you got the first will?"—"Yes," he said, "I have them both"—I said "If it can be done, it was the first will, because that was leaving the money between the brother and sister, and that was as Lockett's wife wished it left"—he said "Well, we will leave this till another day"—I heard nothing more from him for I should think a month; I then said "What have you done about Lockett's affair?"—he said "How done, done what?"—I said "Which will are you going to prove?"—"Oh," he said, "the estate is in debt"—I said "In debt to who?"—"Oh," he said, "lots of people"—I said "I understood from you that there would be 500l. to divide between the two"—"Oh," he said, "Lockett owes me a lot of money, I shall lose 50l. by it"—I said "It is not usual for an executor to lose money if the estate is in debt"—"Oh, but," he said, "I would not let the old man lie in debt and I paid it," and I said "That is very strange to me after what you told me in High Street"—that was about all die conversation we had at that time—I should think that was about seven years ago; I am not very certain—Gunnell did not show me any books that he had as executor; he would not show them to any one—I believe I mentioned in my affidavit the conversation with Gunnell, in which he said he had a document in his possession that would upset Mr. Whalley's will—I was not asked on that point in the Queen's Bench—I don't think I mentioned in the Queen's Bench that Gunnell said Thomas was the second railway porter that he had helped to get a fortune for—he did not say "railway man;" he said he had helped to get 14,000l. for one man—I don't know whether I mentioned in the Queen's Bench the conversation in which Nash said "I was to have security given me in London, and it was put off in the morning till I was in the witness box"—I can't recollect if I was asked—I did mention it if I was asked; if I was not asked I did not—I asked Nash if it was security for the money that had been promised him.

ByMR. ANDERSON. I first heard at Wolverton about the pencil marks on the will; I cannot give the date, it was in 1882 I believe—I cannot remember the months—I heard it from Mr. Turner.

Re-examined. It was at the Solway Arms that I was told, and the following morning Nash told me that he had told Mr. Turner sufficient

to show him that he could now give him a statement that would be worth all the money that Thomas had promised him.

DR. OCTAVIUS EDWARDS . I am a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians and an M.R.C.S.—I live at South Street, Leominster, in practice with Dr. Barnett—I knew the late Mr. James Whalley—I first attended him professionally on 21st March, 1881; my partner attended him on the 20th for the first time—I believe I saw him between 9 and 10 in the morning of the 21st—he was then in very great physical distress from shortness of breath; very ill indeed—doing any business would be a very great labour to him at that time—I don't think he was fit for much physical or mental exertion—I attended him regularly up to the end of the first week or beginning of the second week in April; then for a time he got better—I returned to him about 22nd April, not feeling so well—I do not believe I had any conversation with Mr. Gunnell as to Mr. Whalley's means before his death—on the morning of the death I called at the house about a quarter or 20 minutes to 10—I found Thomas and his wife in Mr. Whalley's bedroom; they were attending him—he was very ill indeed, apparently dying, when I got into the room; he was barely conscious—I think he knew me and muttered something to the effect that it was all over; he spoke indistinctly and was evidently is extremis—he died within a few minutes of my arrival—Thomas left the house to fetch some one to attend to the body—I did not then know the woman's name; I have since heard that it was Mrs. Evans—I waited with Mrs. Thomas till she came; I met her either on the landing just outside the bedroom, or coming through the bedroom door; at any rate, I know she was coming up the stairs before I left, because Mrs. Thomas was timid about staying there—I can't say where Thomas was at that time; I believe I saw him again before I left—I believe he came back with Mrs. Evans, but I won't be quite sure of that—I said to Thomas before that, when Mr. Whalley died, that I would let Mr. Gunnell know that the old gentleman was dead—I said that, because there was some conversation to the effect that there was a packet to be given to Mr. Gunnell on Mr. Whalley's death—this conversation was in the bedroom I believe—that was my only reason for saying I would let Mr. Gunnell know; I was going down the town and it was not out of my way—I went straight back down the town, and met Mr. Gunnell somewhere about the bottom of High Street, near his place of business, about quarter of a mile from 128—he was by himself as far as I remember—I don't recollect seeing young Mr. Gunnell that day—when I arrived in Mr. Whalley's room he was sitting on the edge of the bed with a grey shawl or coat over his shoulders, partially dressed, with a blanket round his legs; I can't say whether he had a waistcoat on—Mr. Gunnell had frequently asked me how Mr. Whalley was going on, as to his health; I knew that he had something to do with his affairs, he was interested in him in some way—I don't recollect the details of any conversation.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. I believe Dr. Barnett saw Mr. Whalley twice on 21st March—when I saw him he was perfectly conscious and clear, but in great physical distress—my partner saw him later in the day—he stated that when he saw him he was perfectly conscious—except just before his death he was never anything but conscious that I know of—his faculties were quite clear until shortly before his death—he was able to get up on the 21st—I won't say that

he was as well as he had been before, but in April he was fairly well—he died while I was in the room—at that time Mr. and Mrs. Thomas were present—I don't think I sent Thomas to fetch some one to lay out the body, I think it was a suggestion of Thomas's—I don't recollect that he said he would fetch Mrs. Evans; he said he would go and fetch someone, and he returned with Mrs. Evans, and she came up into the room—I know she would be in the room before I got out almost—Mrs. Thomas was in the room with me all the time, I think—immediately on Mrs. Evans's return I left the house—I cannot say for certain whether when I left Thomas had come into the room with Mrs. Evans or whether he was out on the landing—there was no fire in the bedroom—it was so small that I do not think it would have admitted of a fire without burning the bed—I think there was a fireplace—Mr. Whalley had had an operation performed on his tongue, he had the whole of his tongue removed a long while, ago by an Edinburgh surgeon—if he wanted to fasten an adhesive envelope he would wet it with his lips, he had no tongue to do it with—I should not think a good deal of saliva would come on the envelope, unless his lips were very moist—his speech as a very indistinct guttural sort of speech; it was difficult to understand him without being used to his way of speaking.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. The room was a front room, an oblique room—the door would be on the left-hand corner—I believe it opened inwards—the bed was behind the opening of the door at the side of the room; the side of the bed would be opposite the window, I think—there was only one window, I believe—the door was at the corner, but I won't be sure whether it was at the short side of the room or the long side—I should think the room would be about 11 feet long by 8, a small room—I took no note of the conversation about the packet, I rely solely in my memory as to the precise words, I took no particular interest in it—I do not think Thomas's reference was to a pocket-book, I will not swear it was not—I will not definitely say what the exact words of the conversation were—I think it was a packet or an envelope, or something to be given to Mr. Gunnell—I met Mr. Gunnell near his place of business, it is in the main thoroughfare—Captain Gunnell may have been close by at the time, I should not like to say he was not.

JOHN ABTHUR ALLAN . I live at Peel Villa, Leominster—I knew Mr. Whalley four or five years—I went to Australia on 7th April, 1881, a few days before Mr. Whalley's death, and did not return till May 3rd, 1884—I frequently had conversations with him about his son, Priestman—he spoke about putting him into business and advancing 5,000l. Or more if he could see his way clearly—some two or three months before I went to Australia he called one day and said that he wanted to see me, and asked me if I thought his son would do well in Australia—he produced a sheet of blue foolscap, and said, "I want to show you a draft of my will"—he handed it to me and said, "You can read what you like"—in that draft will he proposed leaving Mr. Priestman 20,000l., and his two brothers 10,000l. each, and I am not positive, but I think the residue to the nephews and nieces—I said, "That is a good lump"—he said, "Yes, I shall leave that to Priestman; are you going to Australia?"—I considered for a few minutes and then said, "Yes, I am going," and he put down his head and said, "I am very sorry for it"—I am sure that Thomas's name was not in that will or draft—he showed

me a letter from his adopted son acknowledging a watch and 5l.t and appeared very pleased with it—down to the time I left for Australia he appeared on most friendly terms with his adopted son; he never spoke to me otherwise at any time—he spoke to me before I went about his leaving Thomas's house, and said to my wife, "Do you think Mrs. Griffiths would make me comfortable?"—she said, "Yes, very comfortable"—that was when my sale was coming off.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. He never said any harm of the Thomases—I left for Australia on 27th April, 1881, and this conversation may have been within the six months—I cannot say whether it was longer, because I had been having conversations with him from time to time, and made no notes—I think Mr. Whalloy said that he had a sister, and I think he spoke of a daughter who was living with Mr. Priestman—I saw young Priestman there I think twice in three or four years—I knew him before I sailed for Australia—I was staying with friends—I had a great deal to see to.

Re-examined. Down to 23rd March I was in Leominster.

HARRIET PAGE . I am the wife of James Page, the ex-Mayor of Leominster—we live in South Street—I knew the late Mr. Whalley, and have often spoken to him—on the Good Friday before his death he came to us at Brunswick House and asked me to show him over the house—he looked over the lower part of it, the drawing room and dining room, and said it would suit him nicely; that he wanted to take a house, and he liked Hereford Road better than any other part of the town—I said "Are you going to leave Mr. Thomas's?"—he said yes, he had quite made up his mind, and he was very sorry Mrs. Griffiths would not take him to lodge with her—he said that if he took our house he should have a housekeeper, and should keep a pony and carriage.

JAMES PAGE . I am the husband of the last witness, and was till lately Mayor of Leominster—late in February, or early in March, 1881, I met Mr. Whalley in South Street, and asked if he was going to leave Thomas's—he said "I am"—I said that Mrs. Haycourt wished me to ask him if her apartments would suit him—she is a widow, who had just removed from South Street to a more central part of the town—he said that he should not like to go into the town to live; he wanted particularly to get into the Hereford Road, and was in treaty with Mrs. Griffiths for her apartments, and had sent a letter to her—on the morning of his death I met Gunnell in South Street, who said he had called at my house respecting a coffin for the late Mr. Whalley, and he gave me instructions for it, I being a builder and contractor—he said "Thomas is a lucky chap; Whalley has left him a lot of money; not a paltry thousand or two, but thousands"—I was surprised, and asked him how he had obtained his information so soon—he said "Oh, I am left executor; I have the particulars here, "holding up something which he had under his left arm.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. That was on May 7th—he did not say that he was going to Mr. Lloyd, nor did I see him go there.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. What he had under his arm was not so large as this book, but I have not a good recollection of what it was.

JAMES GRIFFITHS . I am a boot and shoe maker in Leominster—I knew the late Mr. Whalley—he met me in February, 1881, and said that he wanted two rooms on 25th March, and asked me to let him look over my house—I remember hearing that he was ill in March, but I met him in

April, and he asked me to tell Mrs. Griffiths to get the rooms ready, and he would pay for the furnishing of them, and would come as soon as he was able—I heard no more from him—that was about a week before his death.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. I live in the house still, I had bought it a year or so before that—it was put up by auction—I don't know that Thomas was one of the bidders—I had never spoken to Mr. Whalley when I bought the house.

JOHN KINLOCK GREIG . I am manager of the York City and County Bank, Leeds—I knew Mr. Whalley ten or twelve years—I knew Priestman living with him as a lad in the Isle of Man, when I was manager of a bank at Douglas—he once told me he had had a disagreement with one of his brothers, and had resolved not to leave them anything, but to leave all his property to Priestman—he asked me what remuneration I thought would be adequate for a trustee for his son, and asked if I could find a suitable partnership for him—a partnership was offered in the house of Messrs. Dixon, woollen manufacturers, who said that through the dulness of trade 5,000l. was as much as they required, but it could be increased to 10,000l. afterwards—he then sent me the letter of March 14th, 1881—after Mr. Whalley's death, Gunnell called upon me at Leeds, and introduced himself as Mr. Whalley's executor—I asked how Mr. Whalley had left his property—he told me as it stands in the will—the interview lasted three hours—I asked if there had been any quarrel between Mr. Whalley and Priestman—he said "No, nothing particular, but he had been annoyed at his not coming to see him before he died"—I said that I felt sure there was something wrong about that will, it could not be genuine will of Mr. Whalley's, as I knew from Mr. Whalley that intended to leave the bulk of his fortune to Priestman, and that very shortly before his death he had asked me to look out for a partnership, and gave him 10,000l. to enter as a partner—consequently he could never have made the will at an earlier date; some of my correspondence I had not got to refer to, but I thought it extended to a later period than the date of the will, and therefore he could never have left him 5,000l. while in corresponding with me he gave him 10,000l. to go into business—Gunnell said he could not tell how that was, he was no party to making the will; it had been made by a solicitor and attested in the ordinary way—he said "You see I am not benefited by it in any way, the only sum I receive is 100l. for my trouble, and having had much experience in these matters I know that is not at all adequate for the trouble I shall have: I think the heirs-at-law are taking proceedings to set the will aside on the ground of incompetency on Mr. Whalley's part at the time it was made, and they have been in treaty with Priestman to join with them for that purpose"—I said I felt sure that was a plea which could not be sustained, as I believed Mr. Whalley to be quite competent—he said it was very foolish of Priestman to join himself with them, as if they succeeded he would lose the little that had been left him; and as I was an old friend of his father's probably I might influence him to join him in supporting the will—I declined to have anything to do in the matter, as the will appeared so extraordinary, and said it would be time enough for me to give my advice to Priestman when I was asked—when I was leaving he said that my evidence would be very important, and he supposed I should not require to receive a subpoena; if

he sent me a letter, letting me know when the Court sat, and a cheque it would be all right—I said it would not be all right, for I should have nothing to do with the cheque—he said that he sympathised with Priestman, and if he supported the will he would use his influence with Thomas, or with the executors, to give him a larger sum than was left to him, 10,000l., 15,000l., and I think 20,000l.—I have been several years engaged in banking and I have had large experience of rubbing out pencil marks on account to summing up all our books in pencil, and have noticed that when rubbed out they will after a time revive to a certain extent and become legible.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. I am not sure, but I think I first knew Mr. Whalley about 1849—he left the Isle of Man, I think about 1875, and this happened in 1874—I left the Isle of Man in 1875 or 1876—this conversation was a year before he left—he did not mention that he should leave his son Priestman 10,000l., he asked me about the remuneration of a trustee, I said that will depend on the amount of property he will have to manage, he said about 60,000l., which he meant to leave to his son—he asked me whether I thought a certain gentleman was eligible as a trustee for his son—I mentioned 100l. a year as remuneration while the son was a minor—he said "I don't think that is enough;" I said "I don't know what you are worth, it depends on your property"—he said, "I consider myself worth 60,000l."—I said "Then that is not enough, you ought to give him 200l.; that would be about the thing"—he did not mention any specific sum which he should leave to his son, but he said the trustee would have to manage that amount of property for his son—he told me he had quarrelled with his brothers, and they should not have any of his money—Gunnell told me that he had seen my correspondence among Mr. "Whalley's papers—it is nearly forty years since I first entered a bank—the reappearance of pencil-marks is the everyday experience of a bank clerk who rubs out his pencil-marks from the cash-book and turns it over at a future period and finds the marks which he thought he had thoroughly erased; I have done it myself—the erasure appears complete in the first instance—I can refer you to all the books in all the banks I have been in—bank books are made of very strong paper, but all banks are not equally particular—rubbing off the pencil-marks with indiarubber destroys the surface of the paper, the glaze, and much more on some papers than on others—in some paper it is not noticeable after the rubbing, but it is if you examine it minutely—on some paper, if you examined it with your naked eye, you would not notice a disturbance—I have never used a magnifying-glass or microscope for the purpose.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. Two or three weeks, or it may be a month, after the conversation with Mr. Gunnell, Mr. Neale waited on me—I think it was about two weeks after; it was in the latter part of August or in September—Mr. Neale, after his return from Manchester, sent me down the particulars of what had taken place in conversation between us as to Mr. Gunnell's interview and mine, and asked me to look at it, and let him know how far it was correct—I did so, and wrote a good many additions to it, made a copy of it, and returned it to Mr. Neale—I believe the copy was destroyed when I left the bank—I have looked for it, and it is not among my papers—my evidence to-day is from my recollection of the conversation—Mr. Gunnell was introduced as Mr. Edward Gunnell, executor of Mr. Whalley, Justice of the Peace for, and

late Mayor of Leominster—Gunnell asked me, as an old friend of Mr. Whalley, what, in my opinion, his state of mind was, and I said that I he was of perfectly sound mind and fit to make a will—I recollect distinctly that 10,000l. or 15,000l. were named, and I believe a larger sum, but I am not certain.

EDWARD FARMER BOWEN . I am manager of the Leominster branch of the Worcester City and County Bank—I knew the late Mr. Whalley personally—Gunnell has been a customer at our bank for some years—he told me, after Mr. Whalley's death, that 5,000l. had been left to Priestman, 100l. to himself, and the rest to Thomas, and that he had a sealed packet left to him in addition, which he did not tell me the contents of—on the evening of 24th July, 1882, Thomas came to the bank, and said that he was to leave a security with me for Nash, and next day Thomas came and deposited with me a promissory note for 1,000l.—I drew it out, and he signed it—we were alone in the bank, but afterwards Thomas called Nash in—I don't remember that it was shown to him, but he might have seen it—Thomas said that he had left a promissory note for 1,000l. with me, and Nash need be no longer uncomfortable—I placed it in an envelope and took charge of it—I understood Thomas to say that I was to hold it between them—no time was mentioned—Thomas said that he and Nash were going to drive to Aberystwyth, and I saw them drive past afterwards in the High Street—I kept the note two or three months—they then came together, and I handed it back to Thomas.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. When the note was given to me had heard the chief circumstances connected with Mr. Whalley's will, and that the property, except 5,000l., was left to Thomas—I had heard of the compromise, and that 17,000l. was to be paid to Thomas, and that Nash was the person who prepared the will—those matters were well known in Leominster—when Thomas and Nash came to me there was apparently no secrecy in the matter—nothing was stated as to what the 17,000l. was to come out of—I understood that I was to hold the note for them jointly—I understood that it was a present from Thomas to Nash in connection with Mr. Whalley's affairs—I do not think anything was said about it being used during the life of Mr. Thomas—I do not think he had been well for some time; he had adopted a respirator, and was suffering from ill-health—an account was opened in the name of the executors of James Whalley soon after the death—the will was proved by Thomas and Gunnell, and they were to sign the cheques—on June 2nd 4,000l. was paid in, and on June 10th 900l., and in June and July sums amounting to several hundreds—the payments consisted of 1,400l. to Mr. Lloyd for Probate stamps, and on September 10th, 1881, 9,946l. 3s. 1d. was transferred to the account of Hilton and Lloyd and four persons to whom the balance was transferred by their order—between the opening of the account and the transfer, it was in the power of Thomas and Gunnell to obtain their money. (Entries from the pass-book were here read, among which were payments to Thomas, 100l. on August 9th, and some small cheques to Gunnell and Priestman.)

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. No 1,000l. cheque was paid in to Gunnell's account at the end of June or the beginning of July, or cashed, or at any other time; there is no such amount through the account—this (A book of 60 cheques) was given to the executors—there is no spoiled counterfoil.

Re-examined. I cannot say whether any cheques were drawn on paper—it is frequently the custom to draw a cheque at the counter, but all cheques are entered in the pass-book—Mr. Gunnell had an account with the bank, and this (produced) is his cheque-book.

H. CROSSTHWAITE. I am one of the firm of Fenn and Crossthwaite, stockbrokers for the late Mr. Whalley for eight or nine years—I produce 23 letters in his hand—they are all addressed to us—I cannot tell whether the letter of April 19th is in his writing—it is signed "J. W."—it appears very like it.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. I have not expressed an opinion that the letter of 19th April was not in Mr. Whalley's writing—I said I was not an expert, but if I gave an opinion at all I should doubt whether it was—nothing has happened since to alter my judgment—I have said, "In my opinion there is a difference, one is more free than the other," and then the learned Judge said that the Jury could see for themselves—I was only in the box a few minutes—nothing has occurred to alter my judgment—one is a clearer writing than the other—I should not like to swear that both were written by one man, or that they were not—a great many letters are very different.

By theCOURT. I had much rather not give an opinion one way or the other—I really have not an opinion—the letter signed "J. W." looks like an imitation of Mr. Whalley's writing—I recollect Mr. Whalley directing me to purchase for and in the name of Charles Thomas 200l. worth of 4 per cent. No 2 Preference North British—I do not recollect the date, it was some time in the year before his death.

Re-examined. When I said that the letter of 19th August was an imitation of Mr. Whalley's handwriting I meant that it was similar—I do not come here as an expert in handwriting—I have examined the letters in the witness box to the best of my knowledge; I do not profess to be able to give a better opinion upon them than any gentleman in the jury-box.

By theCOURT. I have directed no special attention to the subject of handwriting, but on seeing this letter, which I have not seen since the last trial, I have said what I have, that the letter of 19th April looks like Mr. Whalley's handwriting, and that means that it looks similar; that one letter was more cramped than the other, that many letters were like, and many different to Mr. Whalley's handwriting.

EDWIN GREGG . I am Clerk to the Guardians of the Leominster Union and the Rural Sanitary authority—Thomas was Inspector of Nuisances under me, and reported to me in writing—I have seen him write—these letters are in his handwriting. (These were the letters of March 11, 1881, to the Superintendent of Police, and Nos. 6,5, 3, 2, and 8, red.) The first and third pages of this to the word "Temple" I recognise as Thomas's (9, red)—some of the second column of the second page is Thomas's, some not. (SIR H. GIFFARDhere stated that, as far as he could admit anything, there would be no question about them.)

JOSEPH HARPER . I live at 9, Burgess Street, Leominster, and am caretaker of the town-hall and usher of the Court—I have, known, Gunnell since 1859—I know Nash and Thomas—I was one of the bearers at Mr. Whalley's funeral, where I had a very short conversation with Thomas when the other bearers were taking a glass of refreshment—I asked him who this old gentleman was, because I knew nothing of him—he said that he was an old gentleman that came to lodge with him

some two years ago I think; I can't remember exactly how long he I said—I said "Had he much money?" or "Was he a rich man?"—he said "Yes, he had left the money to a nephew; he had left some to his brothers, but hearing about a twelvemonth ago, or before that, that his brothers were dead he had altered his will, and he had made a will in favour of his nephew"—I suppose he meant his son Priestman; he named Priestman, and I remember his saying he had left a legacy of 400l. to the church in that will, but the Vicar had offended him, and he had altered his will; and then he spoke about Mr. Whalley's funny temper, that he was very crotchety, and the great difficulty he had to please him; that he had chastised him two or three or six times because Thomas got a glass too much to drink, and that he very often had to get in the back way into the house, to go quietly, that Mr. Whalley should not hear him—I think the same week as the funeral I met Gunnell at his Vaults' door, he called me across and I had a conversation with him—I don't know how we started, but we got talking about the politics of the town; he said he could not see why we wanted to go outside the borough and some distance away to fetch one to represent the borough, as during the time that he had been in the Council and had been Mayor he had had to stand up and address a company in the Corn Exchange equal or something similar he thought to what it would be to address the House of Commons—I said it required a man of capital to be be put up as member for any place, I thought—he said oh, that would be a small matter to him, as he was left in a very comfortable position—I know he said it was something through Mr. Whalley's death—he wanted me to join the volunteer corps, as, his son being a captain, they wanted to weed out some of the rough lot that were in it—I think three or four times we had conversations about the will—he said that it was astonishing the money that Mr. Thomas was left in this will; I don't recollect anything else he stated—Gunnell said he had been left the money, he should retire from the business in Leominster, and he would be purchasing the house in Kingsland, and would leave the business to his son—Gunnell employed me as valuer of the garden produce at Kingsland; that was some time during the summer of 1881, about October I should say; I could not say to a month or two—I think he had purchased the house then.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. I am a gardener by profession—this conversation on the day of the funeral was at Thomas's house, in the back doorway, before the funeral, about 12 o'clock I think—nobody else was there; all the bearers were in the back kitchen, about three yards from where we were—I don't know that any bearers could hear it, but one, not a bearer, was in our company most of the time—I think I first mentioned this conversation before the compromise—I made an affidavit after the compromise; there was nothing about this conversation with Thomas in that—I cannot say if that was made with reference to the proceedings in the Probate Court; I swore the affidavit on 20th November, 1882—I was not employed by Turner; I don't know that I was ever employed by him—I have gone about a good deal with him from the first time that he came to Leominster—he would turn into my house accidentally at times, not every day, nearer once a week—I go into the Oak very often; I am employed there—I have served two writs for Turner—he has not paid me a farthing—I have had nothing from him in any shape or way—I served these writs for nothing—that is not my usual practice—

Turner gave me a message for Nash to come and see him, which I delivered to Alfred Napp—that message was after the compromise, I believe—Turner was staying at the Oak—the message was not for Nash to go to the Oak; I don't know that Turner said where; it may be the Oak—I always called Nash "Tom," I cannot say what the words of the message were; it might be that if Tom came it would be a good thing for him, or something of that kind.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. They say I have taken a great deal of interest in the politics of Leominster—I don't say they say what is false—I took a great deal of interest, in 1878, in the politics of Leominster—I am a good Liberal—I was at that time employed by Mr. Lane at Rylands's—I left there because my interest was so great in the election, and they objected—I don't know Thomas's politics—I was not in Leominster at the general election in 1880—I did not know Thomas in 1878—I don't know what Gunnell's politics are—he has told me he was a Liberal, and he has worked on the Conservative side; to meet his ends, I suppose—Mr. Gunnell intimated to me that he would like to be member for Leominster—he has intimated to me that in 1880 he worked for Mr. Rankin—he wanted to stand to turn Mr. Rankin out—he has always had a great deal of bounce—what he said to me was he had been left the money—I made a mistake about that first, and said "If he had been left the money"—I am sure of that—I fancy Mr. Gunnell said on two or three occasions, not to me only, but to other people, that he intended putting up for the borough, and what he could do—he told me he intended turning Mr. Rankin out, and I said it required a good deal of money to stand for any place.

WILLIAM HENRY BAXTER . I am a railway inspector of the London and North-Western Company—I have known the prisoner Gunnell about eight years—I met him at the railway station shortly after Mr. Whalley's death—he spoke first, and said "What do you think about Charley Thomas now?"—I said "I hear it is 4,000l. or 5,000l. for him"—he said "Oh, that is nowhere; he has me to thank for it; he would not have had a shilling if it had not been for me; he is the third railway man I have served"—he mentioned some names, and Lawton was one—there is such a man—there was much talk about the will, but I made no note of it, and rely entirely on my memory—Gunnell said that with considerable bounce, as if he was pleased with himself; he impressed it on me by giving me a nudge on the arm—I was not called in the action at the Queen's Bench—I first gave my proof on 16th September this year, or thereabouts—I was called before the Magistrate.

WILLIAM THORNE . I am stationmaster at Chester—in 1869 I was stationmaster at Leominster, and from 1869 to 1872 I was station-master at Hereford—I know the prisoners—on the day Mr. Whalley died Gunnell came to my office in a jocular mood, flipping his fingers—I had not heard of Mr. Whalley's death—he said "I have done the trick, old man; your old collector Thomas has got old Whalley's money, and I am in for a nice egg"—I expressed my surprise, and told him I hoped he would take care of it—he said "I have something in my pocket; I am going to the bank, and want to get back to make arrangements for the funeral"—I saw him again in the yard the same day—believe his object was to get authority to return to Leominster by the goods train, which left at two o'clock—he then told me that he was left

executor to the will—my next interview with him was a fortnight or three weeks after, when he came with Thomas to prove the will—he said he had the papers, and took an envelope from his pocket and put it back—we went to the refreshment room, when he told me that he only stood for 100l. in the will, but the old gentleman had left him something besides very handsome—Thomas was not there—he was on the platform—I should not have cared to go in with Thomas—when we got to the platform I congratulated Thomas on his good fortune and left them—I saw Gunnell one day on his way to Worcester—he told me that there was some chance of the will being contested, but that he had that in his possession which would shut them up—he spoke to me several times about the contesting the will, but I have no recollection of what passed—he asked me if I had any influence with Thomas, or knew any one who had, if I could get him to understand that he must stick to Mr. Gunnell or they would upset them; meaning, I suppose, the contesters of the will—Gunnell asked me if I knew Priestman—I said no, and referred him to Mr. Kent—I cannot give the date of that conversation—Gunnell and I were on intimate terms, and he hardly ever came through the station without having some conversation with me.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. What Gunnell said to me was, that if I knew any one who had influence with Thomas to tell him he was to stick to Gunnell or they would upset him—I believe that was before the compromise—as far as I can recollect it was in July or August, 1881, the year of Mr. Whalley's death—Gunnell was always in a happy mood, but on the day of Mr. Whalley's death he seemed more so—you may take it that it was a bouncing, swaggering sort of way—I think I described it as well as I could when I said jocular, but you may take it if you like as a swaggering, bouncing sort of mood—I did not see what was in the envelope—he said he was going to the bank to pay in a cheque—he did not say the amount—he said he had got the will in his pocket—I have known Gunnell a good many years—he leaves the impression on your mind of a person who has a considerable amount of bounce about him, and in his conversation—I have known him about twenty years, I think.

REV. AUGUSTINE GASPARD EDOUARD . I am the Vicar of Leominster—my church is the Priory Church—I knew the late Mr. James Whalley—he was a parishioner of mine, and a regular churchman—in March, 1881, I saw him regularly about three times a week—I only once had a conversation with him about Priestman—I was visiting him that day, and he asked me to look at two letters; I did so—he asked me what I thought of them, and I told him I thought them very dutiful and kind letters—he said they were written by the best young fellow that ever was—I believe they commenced "My dear father by adoption;" I remember an allusion in them to a watch and chain—I was at the funeral; I called at Thomas's house the day before his death, and did not call after that till the funeral—on the day of the funeral. I was sitting in Thomas's house with Moyle on my right hand and Gunnell on my left—Gunnell said "I think I can see my way now to finishing that stained glass window"—some time after the funeral I met Thomas and Gunnell—Gunnell said that Thomas thought of putting up a memorial window, and asked me what it might be likely to cost—on a subsequent occasion I remember meeting Gunnell when on my way to Thomas—Gunnell said that Mr. Whalley

had left him a sealed packet; he said nothing more about that—there is no truth in the suggestion that I offended Mr. Whalley; I never did.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. I saw Mr. Whalley the day the white will was made—I had not visited him until his last illness—he did not wish me to, but I knew him to speak to since he has been there—I had seen him at church, and had visited him afterwards—we spoke when we met; nothing beyond "How are you?" or something of that sort—that was ever since he came to live at Leominster—until this occasion he had never mentioned his son—I was not aware that the suggestion that Thomas should do something for the church came from Mr. Lloyd—I only visited the Thomases' house once or twice after the death.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. Previous to the conversation with Gunnell, Gunnell had been interesting himself in putting this window in the church for four or five years past; it did not strike me at all strange that Gunnell should make this suggestion—a committee was formed for putting the window in, and collecting subscriptions—Gunnell was never on that committee; he took it on his own responsibility to collect subscriptions—I believe he made himself personally liable for it—that was previous to Whalley's death—Gunnell was himself served with a writ for the expenses of that window—he was liable for the deficit as he took it entirely on himself—he was the only one that took interest in it, and collected subscriptions—I have known Gunnell some years—I quite agree with what Thomas said as to the general bearing and character of Mr. Gunnell being bounce and swagger.

Re-examined. It was about twelve o'clock on 21st March when I saw Mr. Whalley—he was in bed, and very bad.

HENRY ROBERT DAVIES . I am a clerk in holy orders, and live at Church House, Gate Street, Leominster—I have known Gunnell for many years—some time after the funeral I met Gunnell in the street—I said "How is it that you did not play your cards better for Thomas to get all this money, and you only 100l.?"—he replied that he was quite satisfied; that he had got a sealed packet full of securities, and he called them splendid securities—he mentioned the securities several times afterwards; he called them "valuable" another time.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. He gave me no particulars about the securities; I did not ask him: I believed the statement; I believed he had got money from it.

JOHN BENJAMIN DOWDING . I live at Fairfield Place, Hereford Road, and am clerk to Mr. Moore, and hold other appointments—I knew the late Mr. Whalley, and know Thomas—on the night after the compromise I had a conversation with Thomas in High Street—he asked me to persuade Rees to wait until Thomas drew his money, for the money that had been promised to him—I think he said, too, that if he gave Rees a security for the money that he had promised to him, Mr. Turner might get hold of it, and it would ruin his case—he believed that Rees had seen Mr. Turner—I remember the morning Thomas started for Aberystwyth; I met him in the Corn Square, Leominster—he said that he had that morning given Nash a security for the money that he had promised him, or for the money that he had agreed to pay him, and asked me to induce Rees to accept the same—Rees is my brother-in-law—on one occasion I wrote a letter to Mr. Turner about an interview with Rees.

compromise, I could not say when—I was in London at the time of the compromise as a witness for Thomas and Gunnell—it was about the end of July I saw Turner; I think I had not seen him before—soon after the compromise I saw Child, and he gave me Turner's address—I could not say if I asked him for it, or if he gave it me without asking—after the compromise I first saw Child, meeting him casually on the platform when I was going to Hereford one day—he was talking about the case, and said that Bees had been promised some money, and I think he gave me Mr. Turner's address, that I might write to him on the matter; and Child told me that if Rees had any security for the money promised, and the security was negotiable, Turner would see if the money could be got, something to that effect—he told me to communicate with Rees, my brother-in-law—I told him what had been said to me, and he asked me to write to Mr. Turner, and I did so—that is all Child told me within my knowledge—I met Turner at Crewe because Rees requested me to meet him, from what Mr. Child told me, that if Rees had some security the money might be stopped—Rees had certainly requested me to see Turner, and I went to see Turner at Crewe, acting on Rees's behalf—I stayed with Turner possibly half an hour or more—I came to no terms or arrangement with him—he wanted to know if Rees had a security for his money promised, and I did not know and could not tell him—I don't know the day I met Turner, it was about a week or two after 1st July—Turner asked me to ascertain if Rees had any security—I had not asked Rees if he had any security after Child asked me to see Rees and before I saw Turner—Rees had not told me he had no security; I had not asked Rees if he had, when I went to see him after Child told me to ask him—I went to Crewe not knowing whether Rees had a security—I don't think I said Child asked me to inquire of Rees—I saw Rees after I came back from Turner—I told him what Mr. Turner had said about the security; I did not know at that time the amount of money that had been promised to Rees—Rees told me immediately after the compromise that some money had been promised to him by Thomas—it was before the interview with Child; no sum was mentioned—I saw Child frequently upon this matter—I have spoken to Pritchard too—I took no trouble about getting a statement from Rees—I took no offer of money to him—Child never said a word to me that he could have money—I never asked for money for him, and never suggested that he should have money for any statement he should make, he had been promised money—I advised him that he had evidently got into trouble—I never said to Child that if the bribe or money was heavy enough I could get Rees to go the other way—I never had any such conversation with Child, leading him to infer anything of that kind—I am quite sure of that—I am not aware Child has written that in a letter to Turner. (Counsel here read the passage from the letter of 21st August: "If the bribe is heavy enough he will see that Rees goes the other way.")—I told Child that by what I knew Rees knew something that led me to believe it was a fraudulent will—I could not say when I told him—it was in August probably I first mentioned it—Rees said that Thomas, after the compromise, was treating him shabbily, and that he knew something, that he must be careful—I asked him what it was and he said "I know;" I could not get anything out of him—I swear I did not come to the conclusion that money would get it out of him—he said he had been promised money to sign the will—I did not believe any

bribing could get him to go the other way—all I did in the matter was to endeavour to get Rees to tell the truth—I never told Child that I thought Rees would swear the other way supposing he got a bribe, or anything of the kind—I have never had any dispute with Child about money about these matters. (Counsel here read a passage from the letter of 9th July: "Jack Dowding is a selfish knave, and he in his turn wants to cheat Rees.") I am Jack Dowding—I had had no conversation with Child that would lead to that, I know of nothing to which those words could apply—I know nothing to which the words, "He did me" could apply, I cannot understand them—I had no dispute with Child about money, or anything about this matter—I never suggested to Mr. Child or to any one that I should want some of the money if Rees got it—I know Mr. Lord, a member of the firm of Sale and Co., I have seen him once or twice; they were solicitors for the next-of-kin—I went to his office at Manchester after the compromise about August, September, or October, 1882, before Rees made a statement—I went there with Rees, he wished me to go there with him, I did not go at Sale and Co.'s request—I stayed in Manchester a short time, not many hours—I think we went overnight and saw Mr. Lord next morning—Mr. Turner paid the expenses—we went because Rees said he thought he ought to be paid the money before he made this statement—we went at Turner's request—Rees asked me to accompany him—we went to Sale's office, not Turner's—I think Turner met us at the railway-station and went with us to Sale's office, where Mr. Lord was—Rees made no written statement then, I believe—Mr. Lord advised Rees to make a statement, to tell the truth, as the case would be reopened—Turner then made a statement, I don't know that he asked Rees to assent to it; Turner's was not a detailed statement as to the way in which the will was made—Turner gave Mr. Lord to understand that Rees had been a party to this fraudulent will—I cannot remember the conversation—Rees assented to what Turner suggested—that was all the conversation at Sale's office—we were there about an hour or an hour and a half—that might have been on October 14th, I cannot fix the date-previously to that I had not heard from Rees what was wrong about this will—he said he knew something, but did not tell me what—at this interview Rees thought he ought to receive the money that Thomas had promised him, 3,500l. I think—nobody stated that they were willing to pay that—I can't say who mentioned the sum, I don't think I mentioned it—I did not say the sum of 5,000l. must be paid—I did not tell Turner and Lord that I should want something out of the 5,000l. for myself—I may casually have said something about me and my family having been grossly insulted by Thomas—it is true that Thomas did insult me, I could not say if I told Turner and Lord of it—I did not say that was a reason why I should get part of the 5,000l. (Counsel here read the passage from Turner's letter of 17th Oct. to Child: "Dowding had the barefaced audacity to tell Lord and me that he should want a trifle out of the 5,000l. which Rees got, because he and his family had been grossly insulted by Thomas.") I may have said that I had been insulted by Thomas, but I certainly did not demand money, I am sure of that—I remember Rees in 1881 being fetched from our house in Hereford Road, Leominster, on 12th March, to attest Whalley's will, I could not say what will it was—I knew Mr. Whalley—I recollect Mr. Whalley tried to get an appointment for Mr. Thomas at Leominster in the police force, Mr. Whalley came about it to

Mr. Moore's office, the secretary to the watch committee; Mr. Moore was Out and I saw him—that was when Thomas was removed from our railway-station in 1880—I then had a coversation with Mr. Whalley, and he said he wanted to get an appointment for Thomas; he said he did not want to leave Thomas's lodgings and that he had been recommended by Mr. Gunnell to see Mr. Moore on behalf of the watch committee.

Re-examined. I have never received a penny from Turner except my railway fares and my lunch, or the price of it—I have not been promised a copper by him.

ARTHUR FREDERICK GREGORY . I am the relieving officer at the Leominster Union; I know the prisoners—at the end of October, 1881, I went to lodge with Thomas—I was there about the 8th or 9th of May—on one occasion Thomas told me that Mr. Whalley had died in his house, and was worth about 60,000l., and that, with the exception of 5,000l. left to Priestman and 1,000l. to Gunnell, he had left the remainder to him, and that the reason he had left his son so small an amount was that he had had a quarrel a short time previous to his making the will.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. I was in the house about June, 1882—I remember Thomas coming home after he had been to London about the comprmise—I was in the house when Turner and Priestman drove past—Thomas used to receive letters and prospectuses addressed to Mr. Whalley, and used to open them—I won't swear they were not prospectuses on blue paper—I won't swear that I recollect seeing some at the house—I have seen lots of papers about; there might have been prospectuses about in the room—I have seen lots of papers about; there might have been prospectuses about in the room—I will not swear whether they were blue or white papers—I did not see him flourishing a piece of paper about—I saw him holding a piece of blue paper; I can't say where he picked it up from—I was in the room at the time; there may have been a piece of paper in the room—I did not pry into his affairs to see what the paper was; I don't say that I could have seen the paper.

Re-examined. I don't think I saw on that morning any other blue paper except that which I saw Thomas hold up—it was one paper, not a bundle of papers—I did not see where he got it from, nor what he with it afterwards.

CHARLES WEEVER . I am the master of Leominster Workhouse—I recollect having a conversation with Gunnell near the schools directly after the death of Mr. Whalley—we were talking about the will—he said he had taken it to Mr. Lloyd, and he had taken it to Hereford, because he knew the importance of putting the thing right at once—he said "You know, Charles Weever, Thomas and I shall be the two richest men in Leominster."

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. He said nothing about standing for parliament at that time—I took no note of this conversation—he did not say he meant to go to the House of Lords—I said to Mr. Gunnell "I don't know how that can be; I understand you were only left 100l. in the will"—he said "Oh, bless your heart, there is between 60,000l. and 70,000l., and if I don't have my share I shan't be best pleased."

GEORGE NEWTON . I am stationmaster at Wellington, near Shrewsbury—in August, 1880, I was stationmaster at Helsby—Thomas came there as foreman porter on 29th August, 1880—up to that time he had been at Leominster—he came by the 2.19 train—I saw from his appearance,

from part of the uniform he had on, he was the Company's servant, and I asked him if he was Thomas—he said "Yes, I am; but I am not going to stay here long, as about three days will do me"—I said "If you are only come for so short a time it is a pity that you have troubled to come at all; we have had bather enough waiting for you"—he said that he did not wish to come at all, but his friend the Mayor of Leominster was writing to Mr. Patchett with a view of altering the arrangements—I suggested that for the time he was to stay he would require lodgings, and I recommended him to where the booking clerk, William Littler, was living; he went there—the morning after he came a train was due from Chester about nine past eight a.m., and the foreman porter ought to have been there; he was not there—after the train was gone I observed him at the back of a bush looking up the lane towards the village—I rebuked him for not being there—he said he was looking out for an important letter that he was expecting from Mr. Gunnell—shortly afterwards he showed me a letter he had received—he drew out what appeared to be five letters, all folded together, in a large foolscap envelope—he many times said he wanted to get back home about a fortnight after he came he said he was very desirous of getting back; that he had an old gentleman staying with him who had apartments in his house, and paid him 9s. a week—he said he was a very particular old man, and as rich as an old Jew—he did not think he knew what he was worth; a short time before he said he had been investing 1,000l. in British Railway Shares, and he told his wife that if he liked, and had some money, he would purchase some shares for him—it was a good investment, and he could get him the shares cheaper that he could get them himself—he said he would not leave Leominster on any account during his life; that it would pay him better to go home, throw up his appointment, and sit by the fireside; and do nothing at all until the old man's death—I remarked it was poor work waiting for dead men's shoes—I frequently found Thomas writing to Gunnell—I have seen letters at the station for him, which he said were from Mr. Gunnell, who was trying to get him back to Leominster—I did not see their contents—I believe Thomas showed me this letter. (Letter No. 19, of 26th August, from Gunnell to Patchett), addressed to Mr. Patchett—he continued to neglect his duties until his leaving—I said I must report him, and then he resigned.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. I have frequently had conversations with him; not often long ones—they were generally brought to by my having to scold him for neglecting his work—he said in reply that he did not like the work; that he could not do it, and had he known what it was going to be he would not have come—it was rough work—he probably did not like my correcting him—I scolded him sharply when the work was neglected—I don't recollect any complaint of my conduct to him—I never heard him complaining to Mr. Patchett about my wanting him to work in my garden—I never knew that he wrote to Mr. Patchett complaining of my conduct—I have certainly had no letter from Mr. Patchett on that account—I believe the only letter I had from Mr. Patchett about Thomas alter he came to me at Helsby, was that accepting his resignation.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. Thomas was at Helsby about seven weeks altogether, as near as I could tell; he came about 29th August,

1880—I remember seeing two letters at the station which Thomas said had come from Gunnell—he asked for time to go and answer them—there were several more he told me he had from Gunnell—I frequently found Thomas writing to Gunnell—I never read the letters—I went to find him, and he laid the letters addressed on the table at the side of him, and I have seen them—I can't tell how many letters to Gunnell I have seen, several—I cannot tell if Thomas received other letters while there than those from Gunnell.

MARGARET JONES . I am single—in 1882 I was barmaid at the Talbot Hotel, Aberystwyth—I recollect Gunnell coming and engaging rooms there the day or morning before 28th July, 1882—he said they were for two friends of his—the day after, the 28th, Thomas and Nash arrived, and occupied a double bedroom together—they left on 1st August.

Cross-examined. Gunnell has not come to stay at Aberystwyth previously to my knowledge.

WILLIAM EARLE . I am the resident clerk at the Hereford Probate Registry—I received this will of 21st March, 1881, at the latter end of May, 1881, by post, from Messrs. Lloyd and Son, accompanied by a letter—probate of the will was granted on 31st May—there are three rooms used at the Hereford Eegistry, the general clerk's office, the registrar's room, and a private room for waiting purposes—there is a strong room, of which I have charge, in which we keep the wills—I had the will in my custody from the latter end of May, 1881, about a week before its proof, probably, to November, 1882, when it was taken by my colleague, Mr. Lane, to London—during August I was away on my holidays, and then Mr. Lane had charge of the place—while I was there I had charge of it—there were 10 inspections, seven of which were in my presence, but I cannot distinguish between the seven—the persons who inspected it in my presence were Mr. Lloyd, senior, twice (his first inspection was not in my presence); Mr. Lloyd, junior, once; Mr. Neal, once; Mr. Gunnell, once; Mr. Turner, three times—on Mr. Lloyd, senior's, second inspection, Mr. Lane and Mr. Arnold were there; on Mr. Lloyd, junior's, Arnold and myself; that was when Nash was there; on Mr. Neal's, only I was there, and I was alone also when Gunnell saw it—on two of Turner's inspections Arnold, Earl, and I were there, and on another occasion I was alone, and on a fourth occasion Arnold was alone—the dates of the inspections were: in 1881, July 26th, August 23rd, and September 30th, and in 1882, January 2nd, 27th, and 30th, and April 13th, and November 1st, 2nd, and 3rd—when wills are inspected by the public at our office the practice is to place them on a table, and a clerk sits near so that he can view what is taking place—that is not a written rule, but it is the practice—I first heard of this will being supposed to have marks about October, 1882, the day after the assault, the origin of this case, was heard before the Magistrate—I inspected the will with a magnifying glass—I saw the letter "W" at the top of the will, and then throughout the whole body various pencil strokes and marks, and just below the last line of the will a word that looked like "silver," and below that "know my wishes," or "know her wishes"—I could distinctly see it—my memory is at fault; I think it was "know my wishes"—this was the glass I examined it with—I can still see them, but not so distinctly; I think the light would account for that; I can see marks, but not words—between the date of the compromise, June, 1882, and the time I saw these marks,

nobody had inspected the will—a copy had been made for London, but nobody had searched it in the office—these books (produced) of the Registry contain the entries of the inspection—I recollect the day when the prisoner Nash was there with Mr. Lloyd; I asked him if he had been a lawyer's clerk—he said "Yes"—I said "What made you put the attestation in that shape?"—he said "I always do," and with that he left the office.

Cross-examined byMR. ANDERSON. He was with young Mr. Lloyd, who did not leave with him because he and I had a long chat afterwards; I am positive—the room where the public is admitted is on the ground floor; it is perhaps 20 feet by 16—one clerk, Mr. Lane, sits permanently in that room at a table in the open part of the room—there are two tables in the room—there are two windows on the north side of the room only—my table is close to the window, divided from the general office by a screen—there are the two windows, then comes my table, then the screen, and then the rest of the room with the other table, and there is no window on that side of the room—I sit on the window side of the screen, Lane on the other—there is a desk near the other window on the same side of the screen as my table, what I call my part of the room; I work at that desk occasionally, but do not sit there—persons occasionally take wills to that desk—if Mr. Lane is not at his table we place the wills on that desk that we may see them—there is no restriction as to time for people coming to see wills, they can see them as long as they please—Mr. Lane is chief clerk; he has no other duty to perform except sit at that table—he may be occasionally called away to other parts of the building, and that may also happen to me—there is one business room above, the Registrar's—occasionally both I and Mr. Lane have to go to him on business—I was there on the occasion of three of Mr. Turner's visits—we have no entry of the person who searches, but only of the will searched, "James Whalley"—I remember positively one date on which Turner called, 1st November—I have no entries of the names of the persons who called, I give them from memory; I have only the date in the book of somebody coming—I was away for 21 days in August, 1882—there is no entry of any search in August, 1882—the search was in 1881—in my absence it would be Mr. Arnold's duty to make entries in the book of searches—Arnold is clerk to the Registry now; he has been there 25 years—when I am there the entries of searches are invariably made by me—they have been copied from time to time from the rough book into the fair copy book—a fee is paid for each search—"Search" means that 1s. is paid and a copy is produced, and if the original is wanted to be looked at, 1s. extra must be paid; then if a copy is wanted we charge so much per folio—in the entries book we put "search" and "original" against the entries, with the amount paid—here is July 26th, 1s. For searching and 2s. 6d. the copy—Arnold might make the entries if I was busy—I saw this will when it came into the Registry—it is part of my duty to look carefully at the document when it comes in—f always look to see if there are any marks or interlineations or anything of that kind, not microscopically, but with care, to see if there is any writing on it; I look carefully between each line, and at the condition of the will, to see if it has been tampered with or altered in any way, and if it has I require an affidavit explanatory of anything I may perceive, before the will is proved—no doubt I did it in this case—the inspection was done

by myself and the Registrar, Mr. Paris—we examined it for some time carefully—we required an affidavit of plight or condition because we found it on half a sheet of paper—I cannot say we should examine it with more care than usual, because our attention was so called to it—we examined it with ordinary care, and noticed nothing unusual about it except the attestation part, the length and narrowness and peculiarity of that, its position was peculiar—there is no regular rule as to that, but there is a custom—we have many wills in our Registry with many peculiarities about them—the attestation usually extends half across the paper—we get as many wills on foolscap as on brief paper now they are shorter—I read the attestation clauses carefully—the marks I saw in October I could see very imperfectly with the naked eye; I could see them when I had found them with glasses—they were not apparent in October to the naked eye to ordinary observation, they were not apparent to my naked eye until I looked for them—I did not wear spectacles then.

Friday, 28th November.

WILLIAM EARLE (continued). I remember Mr. Turner coming before the trial in London—Mr. Law was there also—Mr. Turner took the will to the window close to where I stood—that was the best light—a small but powerful magnifying-glass was handed to him; a Stanhope lens—he examined the will with it, and discovered a spot near the centre, which he thought was an erasure with a knife—I said I thought it was a grease spot, and not an erasure—that must have been in May or June, 1881, or probably in July—it was within two or three months of the proof of the will—there is no entry of the name in my book, so that I could distinguish that particular search from any other, but I know it was the first search Mr. Turner made.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. There was a search on 1st November, 1882 "Jas. Whalley, 1s.; original, 1s.;" carried out, 2s., and there is precisely the same entry on 24th June—I produced the will in London, and charged "Attendance in London at the trial"—there was also an application for a copy under seal to Messrs. Torr and Co., to obtain probate to Priestman.

Re-examined. I have not the slightest doubt that between 13th April and 1st November, 1882, there was no examination of the will by any outside person—no one was ever left with the will alone.

THEOPHILUS SLAYDEN . I am a clerk in the Hereford District Probate Registry—I was in charge of the office in June, 1881, during Mr. Earle's absence—Mr. Arnold makes the entries when Mr. Earle is away—there was a search of the original will on 17th August, 1881—that was the only search in August—there was another on 29th September, 1881—there was no search in August, 1882—I do not remember being present at the in search of August, 1881—I am not certain whether I was in the office—in November, 1882, I took the will to London, and deposited it in the Probate Office in Westminster—I handed it to Mr. Middleton, the Registrar of the Court, in Court.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIRRARD. Mr. Earle keeps this book—the four first entries, and that of 8th August, 1881, are Mr. Arnold's—these entries of 17th and 23rd August, 1882, are searches of the original of Mr. Whalley's will—the entry of the 23rd is in Mr. Arnold's writing—I see here the addition of the week's receipts for inspections and so forth, which appear

to have been altered; the writing is Mr. Arnold's in one place, and I am not sure whether the alteration, 1l. 9s., on the 23rd is Mr. Earle's or Mr. Arnold's—it looks as if those entries had been put in afterwards, and the addition of the fee added to the column—it certainly has been added up differently to what it now stands—it looks like 1l. 8s., instead of 1l.9s.—I think Mr. Arnold added up his total—if there is any interlineations or erasure, it is the duty of some person in the office to refuse probate in the ordinary form, and to call for explanation—no note of that would be made in the book, but it would be in the bill—here is "16, Jas. Whalley, 1s.; original, 1s.; copy affidavit five folios, "and 4s. 6d. carried out—"search 1s."means looking up the original—if a person wishes to see a copy of the will he would pay 1s., but for looking at the original he would pay 2s.—we only charge 2s. 6d. for the copy of the affidavit—where the word "original" occurs it always means a look at the original will, and nothing else; but in this one case it was not, because Mr. Arnold made a mistake, whether it was 10 or 11—these red ink marks, 1, 2, 3, in the margin, are Mr. Earle's, in going through the book for the purposes of this case—wherever 1s. is carried out "2s., "it means that there has been an inspection of the original—this entry on 10th July, on the left-hand page, is Mr. Earle's; but by whoever it was written it would mean that the original will was wanted for official purposes by some person outside the office, and a fee of a different character to the Government would be charged to the solicitor. (Other entries were here read.) There is no book which shows the person who inspects; or of the time of day, or of the duration of the visit, no record is kept; it would be impossible—if a person comes and inspects the original he pays his shilling—I lent the microscope; it is a Codrington lens of very high power.

WILLIAM EARLE (Re-examined). I made this entry of July, 1882, "Jas. Whalley 1s., original 1s., "and so on—I am sure there was no search of the will that day by any outside person, as I myself sent the copy to Messrs. Case and Co., of London—collating is examining with the original, and although I make the copy and collate it and send it to London, I charge 1s. for the search, as we make the charge for the parties as agents, and we not only charge for collating, but a small fee for our trouble—I put down the search of 17th August, 1831, as a search of that will, but I made a mistake, that entry is in Arnold's writing—the first part of the entry suggests that the original was seen, but the fee carried out shows it was not seen—if the will had been seen as well as the affidavit the charge would have been 5s. 6d.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. I think I wrote this first, second, and third when Messrs. Lloyd and Son asked me to give them a list, or Mr. Turner; it was imperfectly made—I fell into a trap, and seeing the original I put No. 2—when I was examined in Court last year for the first time a doubt arose in my mind—I was able to correct my first impression from asking Mr. Arnold what was really done—it was only from my conversation with him and the figures—there is nothing on August 22nd which suggests anything else but a visit and an examination of the original; that is 2s.

CHARLES ARNOLD . I am a clerk in the District Registry of the Probate Division at Hereford—I have our book here with this entry on 17th August, 1881, "Search James Whalley, 1s.; original, 1s.; copy affidavit"

—that entry was made by me; it refers to the affidavit only, not to the inspection of the original will; it does not suggest that at all.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. There is a mistake—I omitted to put "affidavit" in, and I put it in to show it was not a copy of the will—I put it in at the time I made the entry—there is no mistake really; I put in "5 folios," and found I had left out the word "affidavit," and I put it in—the words "Search, James Whalley, 1s."means search for the will—that is charged if they want a copy of the affidavit, and so "Original 1s." refers to the affidavit—the original will and affidavit are always put up together, because I have to search up the original, which is with the affidavit in the strong room—I know Mr. Turner; I first saw him at the office—I could not speak as to the date—it was before the compromise—I think I have seen him about three times altogether—he was never at my house—I never saw him elsewhere than at the office—I have met him in the street, just to say "How do you do?"—that was only once—that was a long time before the compromise, and I should think he must have been forty feet away from me—he was walking on the other side, and lodded.

Re-examined. When we are asked for a copy of an affidavit, or a copy of a will, we charge 1s. for looking up the papers; that would be search, 1s."—if we are asked for a copy either of a will or affidavit we always charge 1s. for looking at the original for the purpose of making le copy, and we charge 6d. a folio for the copy; five folios would be a half crown—when we make a copy either of an affidavit or will we charge so much for looking at the original and comparing it, as well as for making the copy.

GEORGE HOOKE HODMAN . I am a clerk-in the Probate Registry at the Principal Registry, Somerset House—I examined the will of 21st March, 1881, for the purpose of making the copy, which is known as the red copy, after the original had been taken to be photographed—I examined it for that purpose about July last year; when I looked at the original then I observed certain marks—by direction of the Registrar I marked on that copy of the photograph (produced) all the pencil writing marks which appeared on the original will that I was able to find—this is the paper which I marked—I saw on the original will over the word "street," between the first and second lines, that the bottom of the "D" runs through the two letters "ee;" the commencement of the "D" is above the letter "s" in "last"—after the word "street"—I saw a small mark like a comma; over the "s" in Leominster the capital letter "H;" between "Leominster" and "in"—I saw a mark like a "w;" between the words "in" and "the" a part of apparently a capital letter—in the third line over the first "n" in "gentleman" a mark like the symbol for "and"—between the fourth and fifth line below the letter "m" in "11 Priestman" a curved stroke (The witness was proceeding to allude to other instances of pencil marks, when it was arranged that he should take another copy and place on it what the marks were that he observed, and produce it at a future period of the case)—when I examined the will in the summer of last year I used a magnifying glass, not principally for the purpose of magnifying the writing, but rather as a condenser is used in microscopic work, for concentrating the eye on successive points on the surface of the will, and then generally I saw the marks with the naked eye—I saw the will again at the police-court, and I have seen it to-day—perhaps the

marks are not quite so visible now, on account of the wear and tear to which the will has been subjected, but they are pretty much the same—this will has been looked at more than any other—the quality of the light here may have some effect on my answer—I examined it under very favourable circumstances.

By theCOURT. I can see the following marks now with the naked eye—I can see the "D" over the word "street" in the second line; the mark like "and" over the first "n" in "gentleman" in the third line; after the name "Whalley" in the second line of the attestation there is a mark like an "e" at the end of the word; under the "sand" in the word "thousand, "in the last line of the will, I see "Mr."—under the centre of the word "eight" in the date, in the last line of the will, then is a letter like a "w"—under the "h" in "hundred" is the word "to"—following the word "to," under the letters "red" in "hundred" I see the letters "si" and a tall letter like "t" or "l"—following that a a small "w" with a free stroke to commence—in the word "eighty, "under the "e" I see something like "th"—one line below, opposite the first line of the attestation clause, half an inch from the word "the," I see the word "will" with a small "w,"with the "ll"s rather spread following that is the word "know," and that I think is the plainest word in the whole thing, and something follows that, "he" or "be."

JOSEPH FREDERICK COLEMAN . I am joint record keeper at Somerset House, that is the principal Registry—I have had the will of 21st March in my custody after it left the Court—during the time it was in my custody, when it has been examined it has been in the presence either of my colleague or some officer connected with the department according to the rule of the Registry, and in this case more strictly so than any other I have had to do with—it was once taken out by Mr. Rouse to be photographed—it was produced in the Queen's Bench Division before Mr. Justice Manisty, and at the police-court, and here.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. I don't think I can give you the correct date when it first came into my custody; it was immediately after the decision of the Probate Court at Westminster in September or December, 1882.

FRANCIS JAMES ROUSE . I am an officer of the Probate Registry—on 25th and 27th May, last year, I took this will to be photographed; I continued it in my custody during that operation.

MAUD LEE . I live at Miss Tinsley's, at Ensleigh-Street, Leominster after Mrs. Thomas's confinement, in 1881, I was in her service some time—I was there when Mr. Whalley died—I remember Dr. Edwards coming—I was in the kitchen at the time, Thomas was upstairs—I didn't see Mrs. Evans come—I saw Dr. Edwards leave; he said he would call and tell Mr. Gunnell that Mr. Whalley was dead—I don't know what Thomas did when Dr. Edwards left, I was sent down to fetch some stockings to lay Mr. Whalley out in—I left just after Dr. Edwards—I think when I left, Thomas was in the kitchen, or gone upstairs, I couldn't say which—there was a little fire when I left, it had gone very low, as there was fresh coal put on; that was in the stove in the back 'kitchen, and it hadn't burnt up—as I was going out I saw Mr. Grunnell, he was coming in; Thomas was just going to start to fetch him, because he was rather long in coming—Captain Gunnell was with him—I met them just outside the gate, they were walking together side by side—I went to

Graves, the draper, to fetch the stockings, that was about a quarter of a mile; I bought them and came back—as I came back I met Captain Gunnell coming down South Street, about 120 yards from the house; Mr. Gunnell was upstairs, I didn't see him.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. Dr. Edwards came a little before Mr. Whalley's death—I went in the room when Mr. Whalley died—I heard that he was dead—I didn't remain in the house till Mrs. Evans came—Mrs. Thomas came and asked me if there was any hot water before I started down town; it was warm but not boiling—that was when the fire was very low—I didn't mend the fire, Mr. Thomas did that when I went down town—the last time I saw the fire it was very low, Thomas began to make it up before I left—I saw the two Gunnells just outside the gate, and Mr. Thomas was just going to fetch them; they were coming in as I was going out—they would be in the house a minute after I saw them; they were at the gate, going in—no one had done anything with the kettle at that time, it was on the fire—I didn't see any one do anything with it—I was in and out of the back kitchen where the fire was—Mrs. Thomas said I ought to have had the kettle boiling—the water was wanted to wash the dead man with—it was Mrs. Thomas that sent me for the stockings, and as I came back I met Captain Gunnell walking as if from the house—Mr. Gunnell was upstairs—I went upstairs and saw Mr. Whalley just after he died, before he was laid out—I saw Mr. Gunnell then upstairs in the same room in which Mr. Whalley died—when Mrs. Thomas spoke to me about the fire I put some coal on and smothered it—that was before Mr. Whalley died—it hadn't burnt up when Mrs. Thomas wanted the boiling water.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. The first time I saw Mr. Gunnell that morning was when he was entering the gate—I had been in the house previous to that—I didn't say that I did not see Mr. Gunnell upstairs, I did see him upstairs—I know Mrs. Rees—I haven't talked to her in reference to this matter, not at all; not mentioned it—I have spoken to her since she has been here, but nothing about Mr. Whalley's death; I never have—she has not told me that she saw Captain Gunnell and his father come away together—when I came back and saw Mr. Gunnell in the room I think Mrs. Evans and Mrs. Thomas were there.

HENRY GOODIER TURNER (Recalled). I now produce my ledger and diary—on 11th July, 1882, I have this entry: "Attending Craven Arms after Wolverton, Swallow Arms, T. Nash, confession as to the pencil letter, Whalley very ill, on 21st, spoke of cramping in middle and grease pot; was to bring Rees next day, Glass and Pritchard also came"—on the 12th the entry is, "Ludlow, Nash introduced Rees, first interview"—that is all—it is my own handwriting—there is no other entry by me as to what Nash's confession was; that is the whole entry—there is nothing which purports to give the effect of Nash's confession but this, I have nothing more than that—there is an entry on 4th August, "Liverpool, to see Bussell, Nash's arid Rees's confession, telling him all, and as to the agreement"—at that time Rees had made a confession; I had seen him at Ludlow and explained to him what Nash had told me, and he admitted it—I have an entry of when I saw Dr. Middleton, this is it, "Middleton at Liverpool, September 13th"—the amount I charged my clients in respect of my expenses at Leominster, including some commission when evidence was taken and Counsel and witnesses

attended, including three years, is about 220l.—the amount I expended at Leominster will be in this book—it is detailed at 220l.—that applies to expenses at Leominster only—I have been in Leominster during the last three years regularly, almost weekly—that will include the railway fare from Leominster to Manchester, as well as hotel bills there—the first entry to Priestnian's debit is in 1881—I do not keep the books, my clerk does, from materials furnished by me—it is indexed; the index will not show the date, it will give the page—when the leaves between A and B are filled up it goes on to B, and you shift the book—it is put on the end of each page, "Carried on to" such a page—here on the left-hand side is 1881, September 26th, and there is 1882 there—then the next column is 1881, that would be brought from somewhere else—there is an entry of "three 5l" and "Moyle 5l.," that refers to their coming up to London on the compromise—I cannot say exactly where these are brought from as I do not keep the books; my clerk, who does, is here—this "three 5l."would be money spent, money out of pocket, with which I debit Priestman—I think the first debit to Priestman is 9th September, 1881; I would not say that there might not have been an earlier one.

Q. At the Inns of Court Hotel, immediately after the compromise, within an hour of it, did you not meet young Mr. Lloyd inside the Court and say, "You may think it all over, but it is not yet"? A. There is not a word of truth in that; I went to explain my conduct with Mr. Lloyd—there is an entry on 31st August, 1882, in my diary; I saw Dr. Middleton on that date.

JOSEPH TRICKETT (Clerk to Mr. Turner). The first entry to Priestman here is September 9th, 1881—the entries of 1882 are receipts from Sale and Co., for conduct money for witnesses that were subpœnaed on the Probate trial; they were witnesses they were going to call for the next-of-kin—it is credit—the left-hand column is a credit column—this refers to 1882.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. I am certain that the first debit to Priestman is 9th September, 1881; there is no earlier date, that I am certain of; that is the first debit in the book—an appearance on the part of Priestman was entered by our London agents as early as August, but that would not get into our books because the agents would debit us with that; it would not appear in our books until the London agents' bill came in; it has come in, but it has not been gone through—I believe the first date would be the 30th and 31st August—it would not appear in this book; after the bill has been gone through and settled it will be—there is no entry existing in this book—a charge would be made to the client for our first letter to our London agents; that would be put in the bill, it would not be put in the ledger, and it would not go through the cash-book—I expect it would be put in the draft bill; we should draft the bill ourselves—the attendances are taken from the ledger book, and also from the diary—the bill to Priestman is not made out—there would be three or four attendances, I believe, to the end of August, when Mr. Priestman came to our office.

ELIZABETH EVANS . I am the wife of Richard Evans, of 134, South Street, Leominster—that is not next door to Thomas, there is a house between, Rees's house is next to ours—on the morning of Mr. Whalley's death Thomas fetched me to lay him out, I can't tell the time exactly, I didn't go in directly—I went with Thomas into the bedroom where the

body was; it was sitting at the foot of the bed—he had something round him, a rug, I think, he had no waistcoat on—Mr. Edwards was in the room when I went in, then he left and Thomas left with him—I heard Mr. Edwards say to Thomas that he was going to fetch Mr. Gunnell—after they left I was alone with Mrs. Thomas in the room—she went downstairs, Thomas was not in the bedroom then—I commenced to wash the body; I asked for warm water and they had not got any, they said I should have to wait a bit, the fire had gone out, and Mrs. Thomas was blowing the servant up because the fire had gone out—I did get the hot water afterwards, Mrs. Thomas, I think, brought it up—I had just commenced to wash the body when Thomas and Gunnell came, I can't say whether I had got the hot water or not then, but I was getting the body ready for washing I know, and then I left off—when Thomas and Gunnell came in they looked at Mr. Whalley and then Mr. Gunnell asked for a book out of his waistcoat and some papers out of the cupboard—this is the pocket-book—they got the papers out of the cupboard and went downstairs.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. When I got there Mr. Edwards was there—I remained in the room till Thomas and Gunnell came, I was there all the time in the room with the body—Thomas was not in the room when I went there, Mrs. Thomas was and Mr. Edwards, they were both there when I went in—I heard Mr. Gunnell ask Thomas for Mr. Whalley's waistcoat, and I saw Thomas take the waistcoat from under the bolster of the bed—I couldn't tell how long I had to wait for the hot water, perhaps half an hour—I have been in the habit of going to Thomas's house—some time in the month of March I remember seeing Mr. Moyle go to the house, I can fix the date of that, it was 12th March—Thomas came to me in the morning; his wife was taken ill and he was going into the country, and he asked me to go and see Mrs. Thomas, and I went—she was expecting to be confined; I know the date, because Thomas had written out a telegram for his mother to come, it was not sent because Mrs. Thomas got better—Thomas wrote out the telegram, I have never seen it since—Mrs. Thomas was confined on 18th March, she was ill from that Saturday till the 18th; she was confined on the Friday morning, the 12th was on a Saturday—there was a week between, and it was on the 12th that I saw Mr. Moyle go in there, I didn't see how long he stayed, I didn't see him come out.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. I couldn't tell what papers they were that were taken out of the cupboard, it was a bundle of papers like that (produced from the ledger)—I didn't see the ledger taken out of the cupboard, I didn't see Captain Gunnell at all—when Mr. Gunnell went downstairs with Thomas he did not return again—I didn't see Maud Lee when Mr. Gunnell was there—I don't know whether Mr. Gunnell came downstairs directly he came into the house with Thomas.

Re-examined. When I saw Mr. Moyle it was at my door outside, he was going to Thomas's—I saw him go in through the gate, I was cleaning my front door; it was in the afternoon, he was alone—nobody came to me asking me if I remembered Mr. Moyle going in—I told Mr. Lloyd about it—I didn't tell Thomas, I never had any conversation with him about it—I couldn't tell you when Mr. Lloyd asked me about it, it was a long time after it had happened, he was the first person who spoke to me about it; I then called to mind about the telegram.

Co., of Manchester—I conducted the proceedings in the Probate Court on behalf of the next-of-kin—I made one inspection of the will—I went to Leominster on 30th January, 1882—I did not notice any pencil marks at the time—I did not tamper with it in any way—I went to Rees's house next day with Mr. Turner to see if I could get any information from him—that was on January 31st—down to June, 1882, the time of the compromise, I acted for the next-of-kin, and Mr. Turner acted for Pritchard—Mr. Turner and I were afterwards in communication about the proceedings—down to the time of the compromise I never heard any suggestion of the will having been made by pencil writing having been rubbed out.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. I saw Mr. Priestman about 20th or 21st August, 1881—it was by my request that he saw the next-of-kin—I had previously seen Mr. James Whalley, one of the next-of-kin—the capacity or incapacity of the late Mr. Whalley for making a will was then before us—Mr. Priestman saw Mr. James Whalley after he saw me—that would be 23rd August—I took Mr. Whalley first to see Mr. Priestman on 20th or 21st August, I am not sure which; it was before the 23rd—I asked Mr. Priestman what course he intended to take—he said he had been told if he assisted us he might lose his 5,000l., but Mr. Whalley said as far as that went he should not lose it—there was no mention as to costs, but he was not to have a penny more than 5,000l.

GEORGE JOHNSON . I am Superintendent of the Borough Police at Leominster—on August 22nd I went to Mr. Gunnell's office and saw Superintendent Swanson, of the London Police, who read the warrant to Gunnell, who said "It is a ghastly affair"—Thomas and Nash were brought to the station to us—I read the warrant to them—they made no remark.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. As far as I know no information was given to Mr. Gunnell of his intended arrest—we went to his house also that evening and searched for any papers that might assist us in this case—we did not search his office or his house at Leominster—Mr. Swanson had the keys—there was nothing to prevent our searching the house, bar, or shop—we found no securities or anything of importance in the house.

ALFRED MOYLE (Re-examined). I recollect March 12th, as it was my fifth wedding day—I have now been married eight years—besides the occasion when I went to Thomas's house to attest the will, I have not been inside it, but I have spoken to Mr. and Mrs. Thomas several times.

By theCOURT. I was living at Leominster on 12th March, but I don't think I witnessed the will on that day—I don't remember how I spent the day; I only remember buying a present for my wife.

J. K. GREIG (Re-examined). I was in the habit of receiving letters from Mr. Whalley, and have not the slightest doubt that this letter to Emma Priestman is his writing.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. It appears to have been written with a steel pen instead of a quill, which Mr. Whalley generally used; with that exception I think it is the same writing—when he came to the bank he always had a quill pen in his pocket, as he did not like to write with a steel pen if he could avoid it—I do not think I have seen him at the bank since 1878—there is no material change in the character of his writing between 1878 and 1881 only when he was in bad health being an old

man, he did not write so well, but the character of the writing is the same—I should say that in 1878 it had slightly deteriorated but not much changed, but looking at the correspondence there is no change—I had the whole correspondence to form a judgment upon—I had many letters more than were produced, as he was in the habit of corresponding with me ever since I knew him, we living in the same place—a great part of that is destroyed, including my own—I had, I suppose, a dozen letters to form a judgment from—I did not reduce my opinion to writing—I made that inspection before the compromise—I saw the correspondence again at the late trial, but don't know whether they were shown to me in the witness box or by some of the solicitors—I don't think it was Mr. Whalley's habit to leave a considerable margin between the writing and the edge of the paper—before the compromise my attention was called specially to the genuineness of this particular letter—it is rather less free than his usual style—I have never compared it with other letters—it appears to me to be altogether stiffer and sharper in the turns, which seems to be the effect of writing with a steel pen instead of a quill—in my judgment this letter of April 12th was written with a quill, and this letter No. 2 also—I examined these three letters through a microscope, and I formed that judgment partly from what I observed, and speaking from my business experience that does present even now the appearance of steel-pen writing—I examined other letters as well, with a microscope—this letter E before Priestman appears to have been made by a steel pen sticking in the paper—I refer to the large "E," the lower turn, and to the two horizontal lines under it, which seem to me to present that rugged appearance which is met with from the use of a steel pen, and particularly so as to the line under "Whalley," which appears rugged, as if the point of the steel pen scratched the paper—it is part of the business of banking to examine the signatures of cheques daily, and I should not look to the likeness letter by letter, but to the whole signature—a forger would make each letter singly, but in writing them together he would make the mistake of not imitating the character of the writing—each letter in copying might be a fac simile, but when put together you would see that there was a difference—I see the word "Leominster" in three letters before me—the "L" is not formed in the same way in each, but from the same reason, a steel pen being used instead of a quill—they are all three different to some extent—I can't say that persons acquire the habit of commencing every letter of the alphabet in a particular way, but I think almost every writer has a general character; there is a general resemblance, a general style; but, so far as my experience goes, there is considerable variety in the mode in which most parties form letters at different times—the two "L's" in "Leominster" in the two undated letters differ in the lower turn of the "L," and in the loop—the letters I refer to are Nos. 1, 8, 5, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25; also, Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 17—those are all in his writing—No. 5 is, I think, probably written with a steel pen; it is dated 13th April, 1881, and possesses the same character as that of April 19th—there are some parts which I confess I do not speak with much confidence to—I have examined it under a microscope with a strong light and formed the opinion that it is written with a steel pen, and this one of 25th April, No. 2, may be so also, but I cannot speak with any degree of certainty. Q. That, is the very letter that I put into

your hand just now with that very object, and you said that it was written with a quill. A. Well, it is written in a very shaky hand; it is difficult to form an opinion about it; I really cannot form any opinion in that way at all satisfactory—I now say, on looking at it more carefully that it might be written with a steel pen—there are some indications of a steel pen, but it is written in such a shaky hand that I feel unable to form a decided opinion about it—I have gone through most of them, and I think generally they are written with a quill—I don't know that there is a distinction between a quill and a steel pen—there is a peculiarity about steel-pen writing which sometimes you can speak to with certainty, and on the occasion on which I examined the letter I formed a strong opinion that it was written with a steel pen—there is no letter I can point to with such firmness of opinion that it was written with a steel pen as the letter of April 19th, and if I had been shown that letter now for the first time I should have been in doubt whether it was written with a steel pen or not, had I seen it under the same circumstances; but when I formed the opinion I was aided by a powerful microscope and a good light—I have seen Mr. Whalley write with a steel pen—I had no quill pens in my office, and when he came in he sometimes would not have his quill pen with him, and he might write with a steel one—I have never been to his house; whether he had any steel pens there or not of course I don't know—I know he always preferred writing with a quill pen, and usually carried one in his pocket—he used it something like a pencil, a little bit, cut short, in some kind of holder which fitted the pen; I can't speak precisely to the exact way in which it was carried.

GEORGE HOOKE RODMAN (Recalled, Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD). I can't tell the exact date when I first saw the original will—it was some time in the spring of 1883—I did not examine it by the aid of a microscope, but by the aid of a magnifying glass, not an especially powerful one, as powerful as an ordinary reading glass—I did not endeavour to discover whether there had been any disturbance of the surface of the paper—I have been present when it has been examined by several persons who were called as experts on the trial before Mr. Justice Manisty: Mr. Holmes, Mr. Inglis, and Mr. Netherclift, Mr. Birch, of the British Museum, and Mr. Simms, of the British Museum, and I was also present at the Law Courts when a papermaker examined the will in a private room at the Court—I think the trial had then commenced—it would be during the summer of last year that I saw Mr. Birch and the other gentlemen examine it with magnifying glasses—I remember a microscope was brought on one occasion—I cannot tell what conclusion they came to—I did not personally come to any.

RICHARD RIVINGTON HOLMES . I am librarian to the Queen at Windsor—I was formerly for sixteen years in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum—I have had a great deal of experience in deciphering documents—I was so employed during the whole time I was at the British Museum—I have inspected what is called the white will—I examined it in the summer of last year in the office at Somerset House—I observed written marks; in my judgment they were the marks of pencil writing—after a careful examination I formed the conclusion that those marks had been put on before the ink had been written on the paper—I looked carefully to see if I could find traces on pencil marks over

the ink; I could not find any—I came to the conclusion that there had been an attempt to erase pencil marks—from my experience I have found that when an attempt has been made to erase pencil marks, and it is apparently successful for some time, afterwards, in process of time the pencil marks faintly reappear—it is almost practically impossible to remove pencil marks entirely—I believe it is thus, that when a pencil is used, particularly if it is rather a hard one, a furrow is made in the paper by the impression of the pencil on the paper, and that if the pencil particularly has a sharp edge it breaks the filaments of the paper, and when an attempt is made to erase it with indiarubber or any ordinary erasing material, the filaments of the paper are broken up and cover up the furrows, and the dust and other material arising fill up the furrows, and so at first the pencil marks appear to be erased, and it is very difficult to see them, but in process of time the filaments recover their natural bent, the dust becomes removed when the paper is moved at all, and then the faint traces of the pencil reappear on the paper—as I have said, it is almost impossible completely to destroy the traces of any mark of pencil of almost any material, and a sharp mark I should say absolutely impossible—I have in one or two cases seen that the ink seems to run a little more in places when it is on paper the surface of which has been previously disturbed—in some of the lines on this will I found a crowding together in a marked degree, particularly at the end of the tenth line, and in the middle of that line there is one of those places where the running of the ink is very apparent—from that tenth line onwards I find a very great distinction to the earlier lines as regards crowding—the writing is smaller, the letters themselves are smaller, there are more words in a line, and the writing altogether is much more cramped, and the spaces left between the particular words are not so great as those left at the beginning of the document—by this light it is hardly possible for me to see the traces of the pencil marks; I see some of them, but it is very difficult for me to read them now on the will—I see one or two—here (produced) is a photograph of the will upon which I made marks when I examined it at Somerset House; this represents what I saw—the first mark I saw of the pencil, in the order of its coming, was a capital "D," which occurs just over the word "Street" in the second line—what Mr. Rodman observed, and has put in red on this other photograph, is practically coincident with what I saw—it is in the middle of the tenth line of the will that I saw the ink running at the beginning of the word "what's over"—the writing is much thicker there—there is a somewhat additional thickness and blackness in the writing—there are one or two other cases in which the ink has run, I think several—I have seen these red exhibits (2 to 9) in the handwriting of Thomas—I can see the word "know" on No. 2 of these documents, and the conclusion I have come to is that that is written by the same hand that wrote the "know" on the will—this word "know" is identically peculiar with the first and last of the letters; they are both formed in a peculiar manner, and that peculiar manner appears in all these documents and on the will—besides that there is the capital "D," which occurs in the same manner, and I have come to the conclusion that it was written by the same hand as wrote the capital "D" in this No. 2—there is a very great peculiarity in the manner of commencing that letter—the first stroke begins very high up, and that is to be seen in

several instances in this, notably in one beginning "Dear Sir," when the letters are peculiar and entical—there are several other letters, but those I have mentioned are very peculiar—there is a capital "H," which is also peculiar, over the word "Leominster" in line 2, which is almost identical with the "H" in "Hereford," which occurs in the first of these (No. 2)—there is also the word "will," which occurs at the bottom before the word "know," which I have mentioned, and is in a precisely similar hand—I have looked at the signature "Charles Thomas," on the will; the final "s" is the same as in these letters, and the general character of the writing is the same as the pencil writing attempted to be erased—I think I have pointed out the most conspicuous similarities—I have examined a number of Mr. Whalley's letters, among others the letter of 19th April, 1883—I believe that to be in the same handwriting as the other letters of Mr. Whalley—at the trial in November last year I examined this envelope (25 black)—it was the first time I had seen it—the conclusion I came to at that time was on looking at the reverse side that the envelope had been subjected to the action of damp, and had been opened and then reclosed, because on looking at the junction of the paper below the flap which is generally opened I found there marks which I see now which showed me that the paper had been distended by the action of damp, and had been closed, and there are two places where the paper is rough, which I never saw in any envelope or paper except what had been wetted, because they are generally made by machinery and are perfectly smooth; it is the lower joining (The envelope was produced as one of those impounded by Mr. Justice Manisty).

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFAD. I drew up a written report of the judgment I formed after my first or second examination in the summer of last year—I have not got it now, I have not seen it or a copy of it since—the reappearance of the pencil marks is simply mechanical, there is no chemical effect—what we call black lead is plumbago—the sharp point of a pencil makes a furrow in the surface of the paper, and then if an attempt is made to erase the pencil marks the minute filaments of the fabric paper closes over the furrow so that it looks a fiat surface, though the furrow is underneath, and when the filaments resume their erect position you see what is underneath, the remains of it, the greater part of the plumbago being taken away by the action of rubbing with the indiarubber; so that in order to establish that something had been impressed on the paper and then the pencil erased, so as to reappear it is to some extent an essential condition of that theory that the surface of the paper must have been disturbed by the action of the pencil to an extent sufficient to allow the filaments of the paper to close over the furrow—a light touch of a pencil would of course leave a very slight furrow behind—it is possible to make a mark on paper with plumbago without any furrow at all with a light and dextrous hand, or by putting a pencil piece of paper over a plain piece and rubbing with the hand—an entry on one leaf of a pocket-book will make marks on the opposite leaf after a little time, when it has been pressed—there would in those cases be no furrow in the paper to which the pencil marks had been transferred, no breach whatever of the continuity in the surface of the paper—have been able to point out a spot where continuity of the surface of this paper has been broken; the last pencil mark on this paper, just within 1/3in. from the "y" of "Whalley in the signature, that if not the only one, that is a

particular instance—I think the whole fibers of the paper have been disturbed wherever the pencil can be traced—I think I was asked that question at the Queen's Bench—I said "I think I have been able to trace it"—I think I could see by examination with a glass the marks of interferences with the surface—"I think I have been able to trace it, but the disturbance is so minute it is hardly possible to, particularly after a paper has been worn and been in many hands"—that was my answer and my judgment at that time; I don't alter my judgment—I think I have been able to trace it, I say that now—I see distinctly the greyish colour of a faint pencil, not merely a scratch or furrow—I am able to distinguish it (The Counsel read a portion of the shorthand notes of this witness's examination at the trial in the Queen's Bench. "Q. Can you point to any particular spot in that will where you say there are traces of disturbance? A. I cannot point to any particular spot now; there is one place where it seems to have been disturbed, where it seems to have had an effect on the ink, which, as I consider, was written afterwards.") I can hardly say at this time what that spot is, with this light I cannot see well enough—I think I said that the whole of the paper had been disturbed above the signature. (The Counsel read a portion of the notes immediately preceding and including what he had previously read.) The place near the attestation clause is the place I pointed out just now—the disturbance of the paper, unless there had been some wilful effort to conceal it, would be there still, to a very slight degree I think, because with regard to the filaments recovering their natural bent, I may explain that this paper has been laid under considerable pressure, and handed about, and the original condition of its surface is very different now from what it was when I first examined it at Somerset House—I have not seen it worn in any improper way—there is an appearance of disturbance all over the paper, but I consider that the original disturbance of the surface of the paper by indiarubber, or whatever erasive substance was used, is not to be distinguished now from any other disturbance from the natural wear of the paper, by being mixed and carried about with other papers and being pressed; even where the original disturbance in a paper of that sort is very minute, the very putting of two or three other papers on it, and leaving it for an hour, would have an effect on it—I think in Court I have seen other papers laid on it—the way in which it is kept folded up in an envelope, and in a box with other papers, would give a pressure which would restore to the filaments their original bent, and the disturbance would appear less afterwards—I doubt very much whether the Jury with any appliances could see the disturbance at this time—I cannot trace any indentations now on the paper of the words I suggest to be in pencil, I could at first—I think I said in my report that there were very strong indications of pencil marks, I could not be certain if I said that there were indentations—I cannot say I ever used that particular word—I certainly intended to give the impression in my report that there were furrows, scores, or indentations on the surface of the paper; my term, "marks," was intended to apply to every kind of effect a pencil might have on the surface of paper. (Counsel reading from the shorthand notes of the trial in the Queen's Bench: "I cannot see indentations now, but it appears to me there must have been an indentation at the word Whalley; that also is an indentation with pencil.") That was the answer I gave—it is what I intend to some now—that was within two or three months of my seeing the original;

after that it had been seen by a great many—I certainly draw a distinction between the condition of the will in 1883 and when I saw it two or three months afterwards; the condition was different—I think I had seen more than one indentation in the original examination—I will undertake to say I had. (Counsel read another passage from the shorthand notes of the Queen's Bench trial.) I mean now as I meant by my answer at the other trial, that the only mark to which I paid particular attention was that about half an inch from the James Whalley—I don't mean to suggest it was the only one I observed, and that others may not have been there which I did not observe—I was there to observe and make a report on it—I should say it may be that if that was the only one observable that was the only one capable of being observed, the only one capable of notice—that one I did observe, and I do not wish to say that I observed any more.

By theCOURT. That was the only mark I saw on the paper, which I could be quite sure was an indentation by a pencil, and the only one of which I could speak with confidence.

BySIR H. GIFFARD. My opinion is this envelope had been subjected to damp, opened and refastened, and that depends on the edges of the lower juncture of the back of the envelope, particularly on the right hand side—it looks as if there had been some slight disturbance of where the envelope in the first instance was gummed together and then severed—I came to that inference from this: when that envelope was opened the whole of the gum with which it was fastened became liquefied, and the whole envelope came open and whole paper was distended with moisture, and to close it again it was necessary first to fasten down the lower part, which had been more disturbed, and in fastening it down there came two places on the edges which you can see, I think—my argument is that no machine did that, and therefore something else did it, and therefore it has been done twice over—I presume that it came from the machine in a proper condition and properly fastened down—envelopes occasionally are not properly fastened down; in that case the piece of paper is perfectly flat—I assume this envelope must once have been in a perfect condition—it is not in a perfect condition now, but it is fastened up, and therefore somebody must have fastened it up—if it was originally not in a perfect condition and somebody fastened it up then it would be one operation and not two—this letter to Emma Priestman, 19th April, is of the same character as Whalley's handwriting—I think the first part of it shows a slight difference—it seems more formal than his usual cursive hand—his usual handwriting, as far as my experience goes, is very free—Mr. Whalley's is generally a free hand; the beginning of this letter is not—I think the first half is formal, and then he lapses into his original ordinary free writing—the first part is not his usual free handwriting—I have noticed some difference between the formation of some of the letters and his ordinary hand—the capital "L" at the beginning is in his own hand and the date—the first letter of his name, James Whalley, the "J," is different to his usual writing—here it goes straight up—I have made handwriting a study to some extent—it is undoubtedly one of the modes by which forged writing is detected to see whether a word has been painted, and the pen lifted at an unnatural part of the letter—in the fetter of 19th April I did not see any trace of the pen having been lifted

at the top of the letters "h," "r," and "i"—I don't think the pen has been lifted at the top of these letters—I can't express a confident opinion that it has not been—I should require to examine a good many letters and combinations of letters of the same kind before I gave an opinion whether, if there were three such breaks with such a writer as Mr. Whalley it would create suspicion—it would depend on the character and direction of the strokes a good deal—the letter "A" in April is disjoined—I have not looked through the other letters to see if the "A" in April is formed in the same fashion—I have looked at most of the letters—I can't tell whether that is the usual way in which Mr. Whalley formed his "A"—I made a report on that letter—I was cross-examined on it at the other trial, and I then said I came to the conclusion that that was Mr. Whalley's handwriting—I do not think I made a written report.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. Ink used in writing often by lapse of time changes its shade—it very often becomes darker—a document containing words, some of which were dark and others light, might be explainable by the different times at which the words were written, or it might have been written by the same ink if not exposed to the same amount of light.

FREDERICK GEORGE NETHERCLIFT . I live at 10, Bedford Row, and have been for many years an expert in handwriting—in May of last year, this letter (Black 3, the letter of 19th April) was submitted to me by Mr. Turner, with others of Mr. Whalley's handwriting, I gave an opinion that it was Whalley's handwriting—since that time I have seen the letters during the trial and also photographs which I have at my office, I believe undoubtedly it is Mr. Whalley's handwriting—on 20th and 21st June last I attended at Somerset House, and there saw the will of 21st March; I took with me a photographic copy of the will, I did not make a facsimile of what I saw, but I put it down as roughly as possible, I think you have my copy there—the first thing I saw was a capital D in the second line—I saw Mr. Rodman's photographic copy a considerable time afterwards, I compared what I had seen with what Mr. Rodman had seen, they corresponded—I was shown this document, I compared it with the pencil marks on the will, I formed the opinion that the pencil marks on the will are undoubtedly in the same hand as that which wrote this memorandum of Charles Thomas; there is the word "Know," and with the final "es" he leaves a space before he comes to the "s" as in wishes, at about the end of the will; then the words "two," "November," "especially," "if," and "servant;" then the capital letters, part of the "H," and of the "W," and of the "L"; the capital "D" is exactly like Thomas's, I find it throughout his—I find fourteen similarities—there is "sh" in wishes—I think there are forty-eight pencil marks altogether, I have counted them and mentioned them in my report.

Cross-examined bySIR H. GIFFARD. I have not got my report now, I gave it to the solicitor at the time of the trial, and did not think I should require it again, the documents I had to form my opinion on as to Mr. Whalley's handwriting were the photographs, and at the trial I had others put into my hand, I think some half-dozen—my report is dated 8th August, that was before the trial, three or four letters of Mr. Whalley had been furnished me before the trial—I could not say which they were, they were photographs left with me for me to complete my opinion—my report does not show it, that was written long after—I had seen that

letter—I never wrote a report on the letter, it was a verbal opinion I gave, Mr. Turner called on me with that letter, and I gave him a verbal report two years ago; it was in May, 1882, I think, I saw the letter of 19th April—at that date I had three or four letters to compare with that letter—it is a little constrained, as if he had written it more deliberately than usual, and I thought the subject matter perhaps had something to do with it; it certainly is not like the free handwriting of the others I saw; not so freely written.

THOMAS ELIOTT BERRY . I am a shorthand writer of Rolls Chambers, Chancery Lane—I took shorthand notes of the evidence of the prisoner Thomas at the trial before Mr. Justice Manisty, on 22nd November, 1883, which was the first day Thomas gave evidence; he was the first witness for the defence. (The shorthand notes of Thomas's examination were partly read, after which it was arranged that they, as also the notes of Nash's and Gunnell's examinations, should be taken as read, Counsel on either side being at liberty to refer to any portions they desired.)

Saturday, November 29th.

The following witnesses were called for the Defence:—

EDWARD PRIEST LLOYD . I am a solicitor practising at Leominster in partnership with my father—he has been in practice there over 40 years—I was at Leominster in May, 1881—I remember seeing the will of 21st March—my father brought it into the office on Saturday, the day of Mr. Whalley's death—I looked it over, read it over, and I read it on some other occasions, before it went to Hereford, several times—an engrossment was made in the office—I did not then notice any marks upon it, nothing at all to attract my attention—towards the end of August litigation commenced concerning the will—I communicated with Bees, one of the attesting witnesses—he came to our office for the purpose of making a statement with reference to the execution of the will—he did make a statement, which I took down in writing in his presence—this is it (produced), dated 19th August, 1881—it is in my handwriting—there is another statement of 1st December, 1881, and a third of 20th March, 1882. (Read: "19th August, 1881. I reside next door to Mr. Thomas's house, where the late Mr. James Whalley was lodging. On 21st March last Mr. Charles Thomas called upon me and said Mr. Whalley wished me to go to him. I went accordingly. Mr. Whalley was then recovering from an illness. He said he wished to trouble me to witness his signature. I was not much acquainted with Mr. Whalley. I had not the least reason to doubt about his being in a fit state for the business. Mr. Thomas William Nash, but no one else, was present at the time. Mr. Whalley signed his will in the presence of myself and Nash. Nash then signed as witness, and I did the same, both in the presence of Mr. Whalley and in the presence of each other. Nothing particular was said by Mr. Whalley or Nash. I had no suspicion of anything wrong. I had witnessed a will before for Mr. Whalley, about 10 days before the will already mentioned. The will was in his own handwriting, and he complained his hand was not steady. He was not well then, but apparently able to go about in the usual way. When Nash and myself came downstairs on 21st March after having seen Whalley sign the will, I heard a knock at the street door, and saw Dr. Barnett, the surgeon, enter the house. I knew he was attending Mr. Whalley professionally." The statement of 1st December: "Additional evidence of Mr. Rees: I am

certain the first will witnessed for Mr. Whalley was witnessed about 10 days prior to the 21st March, 1881, because Mr. Whalley was at that time, although unwell, able to get up and go about partially. This will was witnessed by Moyle and myself in Whalley's sitting-room, and he fell ill a few days after signing the first will, and he then took to his bed, and was in bed on 21st March, which was the day on which the second will, prepared by Nash was signed. I only witnessed one will with Alfred Moyle." The Third Statement of Edward Rees: "I am certain the first time I attended with Moyle to witness the will of Mr. Whalley was on 1st March, The second will we witnessed is dated on that day, which was a Monday, and therefore the first will would be dated Saturday, 1st March. I am sure about this because Mrs. Thomas, the defendant Thomas's wife, expected to be confined about this time, and it was on 12th March that the defendant Thomas left instructions for a telegram with the witness's wife to be sent to Ludlow in case the confinement happened on that day. It was on this day, March 12th, that witness was in the garden at J.B. Dowding's dwelling-house, Charles Thomas came to him and asked him to go to Whalley and act as witness. He does not remember Moyle's name being mentioned. When sent for as a witness he went and met Moyle at Whalley's, who stated he wanted him and Moyle to sign a paper. Does not remember Whalley called it a will, but that what he wanted was on account of the uncertainty of death. Understood it to be a will written on two sides of a sheet of blue paper, and the size of ordinary note-paper. When he witnessed the will on March 25th Mr. Whalley had it in his hands, and looked over it, that is read it to himself, before he signed it.") Those statements were given by Mr. Rees in my presence—I have often taken statements from witnesses in these cases—was in London on 10th June, when the compromise was made at the Probate Court—after we came out I went to the Inns of Court Hotel; I was staying there—I met Mr. Turner as I was crossing the hall from the Lincoln's Inn end to the Holborn end; he stopped me and expressed discontent with the terms of the compromise—he said Thomas ought not to have more than 10,000l., and he asked me whether he would not have been content with that amount—I said "Certainly not; if I had my way we should never have compromised at all"—he then said "Well, you are mistaken if you think the fighting is over, we have not done it all yet," or words to that effect—I remember the letter to Emma Priestman being produced shortly before the trial at the Probate Court—three or four affidavits of documents were made; it was the fourth affidavit of documents that disclosed that letter—directly I saw it I instructed Mr. Chabot, the expert, with reference to the genuineness of that letter, and I received a report from him—he is dead. (MR. ANDERSONproceeded to ask what this report was; theSOLICITOR-GENERALobjecting, the Court ruled that the question was inadmissible.) I have had all the business affairs of this matter in hand—Mr. Whalley left a certain number of securities, a great number of Turkish and other bonds payable to bearer, to the amount of several thousands of pounds, I don't know the exact amount—those were duly accounted for by Thomas and Gunnell.

Cross-examined byMR. JAMES. I am not perfectly certain that the contents of Rees's statements that have been read was communicated to Mr. Gunnell, but I should truly say they have been, I should say I have

told him all about it; yes, I have—if I have not read them over to him, I have told him what the contents were.

Cross-examined by theSOLICITOR-GENERAL. My father acted as solicitor for Gunnell and Thomas throughout these proceedings, he is here, he and I have acted jointly in the matter—I am in partnership with him—our firm advanced a considerable sum of money for the purposes of the litigation, we have not been recouped—we paid nothing to Gunnell, Thomas, or Nash—we have paid the witnesses their expenses since the trial in the Queen's Bench; we have made an application to those who appeared for Priestrman and the next-of-kin, to recoup us our costs out of the estate; application was made to Mr. Turner, and he consented to it—it was not refused—it has not been paid—I have no document showing a promise to pay—I did not myself see him, my father did—before I took own Rees's statement on 19th August, 1881, I had been in communication with Thomas; we sent a clerk to fetch Rees, and we told Thomas to send Rees to us—the last five lines of the statement are in my father's handwriting, but taken at the same time—1st December, 1881, was the next time we took a statement from him—I can't say if it was the next time we saw him or not—on the first occasion Moyle's name was not mentioned I think—I can't say whether I had heard his name mentioned before December, 1881—I can't recollect at all when we first heard of Moyle, it may have been mentioned to me before the visit in September—I saw Thomas frequently about the matter—there was a further statement of Rees on 20th March, 1882—it was not from Thomas that we heard Rees could give further evidence—Counsel wished us to see Rees and get further evidence on the point in March, 1882, and I saw Rees again—I had seen Thomas and got a statement from him—I cannot tell the date, without referring to papers, I should have to go to Leominster to get them; there is no one at the office that I could send there, we are all up here, it is a seven hours' journey there, and I could not get there on Sunday—on 2nd November, 1882, I inspected the will at Hereford—Mr. Earle, the Registrar, on that occasion called my attention to the pencil marks on it—on 26th May, 1881, I received money from Gunnell for probate fees—Turner said at the Inns of Court Hotel, "The case won't rest here, the fighting is not all over yet, "or" not finished altogether yet," or "the litigation is not over," I don't profess to remember the exact words, that was the sense.

Re-examined. The money we have paid has been for expenses incurred in the litigation, on the terms of the compromise that all the costs of the probate should be paid under an order of the Court—the costs have not been paid—I did not see Mr. Turner myself about the costs, nothing came of it—when Mr. Earle called my attention to the marks on the will they were much more distinctly visible than now—I could not say I could see them with ease with the naked eye, but I could see them on examining the paper without a glass or anything.

Monday and Tuesday, December 1st and 2nd.

WALTER DE GREY BIRCH . I am an assistant in the was department of the British Museum—I have been there twenty years—I have had considerable experience in the deciphering and comparison of handwriting, &c.—this will of 21st March was shown to me last year—I examined the surface of the paper with a microscope to see if there was

any disturbance—I did not find any disturbance, but there appeared to hare been writing other than ink on the will—I was not quite certain how that had been done—I thought at first it might have been with a common black lead pencil, but on further examination I came to the conclusion that it might have been written with a metallic point, such as is used in a common note book—I was not able satisfactorily to make out the handwriting so as to say whose it would be—I have not seen the will since then—(Looking at it) if anything it is less distinct now, but it, was always very indistinct—I was shown the letter to Emma Priestman of 19th April at that time, at the trial, and I then compared it with some undoubtedly genuine letters of the late Mr. Whalley, and on Saturday I again compared it with the letters that have been put in evidence—in my judgment that letter is not in the handwriting of Mr. Whalley—two letters were placed in my hands; a letter written, I think, about a week before the disputed letter, and a letter of a week or so after—I placed them side by side, and it was perfectly evident to me that they were genuine letters, written by the same individual, and indicating every characteristic of a genuine handwriting by the same person; but when I placed the letter to Emma Priestman between those two in their proper chronological order, a week between each of them, it became manifest to me that the handwriting was not in any way to be compared with the other two—when it was closely examined it had a feigned or simulate resemblance at first sight, but when I came to detail the letters and look at them according to the letters of the alphabet and take the capital letters and every variety of the circumstances, I came to the conclusion that the letter to Emma Priestman was not written by the same individual who wrote the other two letters—there were many distinctions between them—the paragraph beginning "I have been very ill" commences at the extreme left hand side of the page; in these other letters I do not find any example of that—on the contrary, I find that the paragraph begins more than one third away, nearly to the centre—the next difference is in the angle of the writing; in the genuine letters the writing appears more falling down to the horizontal, but in the disputed letters it is not quite so much falling down—in the genuine letters the lines appear more horizontal; in the doubtful letter there is a gradual falling away until we get to the end of the page—the disputed letter is I think the more upright—the slope of the lines in the disputed letter is very marked at the bottom of the page; in the unquestioned letters it is more horizontal—in the genuine letters I noticed a running along the line, the writer seeming when he had come to about quarter or three-quarters of an inch to the right hand, to have squeezed in the word and pent it at an obtuse angle to the rest of the writing—that does not exist in the disputed letter—those are the principal characteristic differences that I noticed—there is another with respect to the letter "Y" in the word "you" in the middle of the sentence, it is a very laboured and indented form, and quite unlike any other "y" in "you" in these other letters—in addition to these two letters on Saturday, I looked carefully at all the other letters that have been put in evidence, and I am still of opinion that this letter is not in Mr. Whalley's handwriting.

Cross-examined by theSOLICITOR-GENERAL. I thought that the marks on the will had been made other than with ink, with a metallic point, with one of those pencils known as a metallic pencil—I observed, he

writing—I saw the word "know" at the bottom—I examined that last year in connection with writing of Thomas's—I can't say now whether that word "know" is very similar to Thomas's writing; I should like to see it—I said I thought it had a general resemblance—I had writing of Thomas's in my possession for the purpose of comparison—this (produced) is a document that Thomas wrote for me to compare with—I have not seen any letters of his since—I don't remember seeing any documents of his at the trial, unless these are they—I believe these three documents were shown to me—I said then that the handwriting of those pieces which were written for me, appeared to be that of a man who was asked to give a specimen of his handwriting; there is a certain amount of difference between that and the natural handwriting of a man not asked to give a specimen—I looked at the writing in the little black book. (It was handed to the witness.) There is certainly a good deal of difference in the writing here at different times; some is stiffer, and some freer—I should not say that had anything to do with the pen that was used; there is an attempt at printing—I don't think it is all written by the same pen; the difference might have something to do with the pen—one of the things in the letter to Emma Priestman that strikes me as not being genuine is the capital Y; I think that is an uneducated thing—the word "you" occurs several times in the letter without a capital Y; that is the only place in which it occurs with a capital Y in the middle of a sentence—it did not occur to me that there was anything in the sense which might account for that capital Y there—I can't say whether the writer might want to put emphasis on the word "You" in that place; I did not consider that at all—that capital Y was one of the things that led me to think it was not a genuine letter; it is not like any other capital Y in the letter—I observe in the word "have," in the second line, and in other places, a little horizontal stroke at the top of the "h"—that is rather a peculiar way of forming that letter—I do not see any other "h" made in that way—I have not observed that that peculiar mode of forming the occurs occasionally in the genuine letters—I should like to see them—I see a small stroke at the top of the "h" in "have," in the fifth line—(Looking at two letters to Mr. Greig of 24th January, 1881, and 5th February) here is a loop at the top of the "h" here—I find the "h" made in various ways; sometimes with a stroke down, and sometimes without any mark at the top.

WILLIAM BEAUMONT . In May, 1881, I was clerk to Messrs. Lloyd and Son, Leominster—I recollect this will of 21st March being brought into the office, and seeing it in the office—I made the engrossment from it for probate—I examined it carefully when I had it in my hand—I read the will to my fellow-clerk, who had the engrossment as we examined it—I certainly did not notice any marks upon it then—afterwards, in November, 1882, I went to the Registry at Hereford and examined the will on a desk, I believe, occupied by Mr. Arnold—Mr. Earle then pointed some marks out on the will, but in the course of our examination we found others—I should think we were at the Registry from half an hour to three-quarters, Mr. Lloyd and myself, with the will before us—a clerk was not with us all the time; Mr. Earle was the only one when we went in, I believe, and he produced the will, and then went and sat down behind his desk that has been described—the other clerk came in afterwards;

but we had a lapse, I should say, of 10 minutes; there was no one, apparently, watching us.

Cross-examined. I should say the partition was about four feet six to the top—Mr. Earle sat at a table—there was only the desk, no partition between us—as he was at the table he was lower down than we were at the desk, and could not see what we were doing on the top of the desk—both table and desk stood on the floor, but the table was very much lower than the desk, where we were looking at the will which was too high for him to see anything we were doing unless he stood up; I can't say we watched Mr. Earle to see if he stood up, we were busy with the will.

WILLIAM WALL . I live at 57, South Street, Leominster—about the last week in July, 1882, I went to Gunnell's office in Church Street—when there, Captain Gunnell came in—a door opens from the office into the dining-room; after Captain Gunnell had spoken to me he went into the dining-room, I don't know who was there, he asked me where his father was—I was in the office when Captain Gunnell went into the dining-room—he spoke to Gunnell, his father, and said, "Rees is coming to see you and he is in a hurry, he wants to see you and he is in a hurry to go"—Captain Gunnell then came into the office again and said something to me, in consequence of which I went into the passage which leads to the office, Captain Gunnell also left the office—I saw nobody in the passage till Rees came to the door and went into the office from which I bad come out; Captain Gunnell had gone away, I remained in the passage—when Rees went into the office the door was shut—there is a door into the office from the street through the dining-room, not into the passage—when Rees had gone into the office I heard a conversation between him and Gunnell. I was then at the door between the office and the passage—the door was opened, I believe, by Mr. Gunnell after Rees had been in about five minutes, I could not say who opened the door—I heard high words, quarrelling between Mr. Gunnell and Rees; and when the door was partly opened I heard Rees say to Mr. Gunnell "If I can't have the money of you I can have it of the other side"—Gunnell said "Go and get it, go out of my office, you scamp," and then he shut the door—when he did so Rees was still in the office standing just inside, and Gunnell stood with the door in his hand—Rees did not go when he was told for a minute or so, but the door was shut and he remained in the office—in about half a minute or two he came out of the office, and Gunnell slammed the door as if he was in a passion.

Cross-examined. I went to take an order for four iron gates for Mr. Gunnell's house at Kingsland—I could not hear what passed when Rees first went inside, but in about five minutes one of them opened the door and I heard what was said, and then the door opened and Rees came out—I don't think I could have said just now that Gunnell stood with the door in his hand and Rees came out about half a minute later, if I did I must have made a mistake, he came out before the door was shut.

JOHN MATTHEWS . I live at 39, Bridge Street, Leominster—about the first week in August, 1882, I was in Gunnell's place of business, in which, as you go in from the street, there is a bar and a small room, and out of that there is another room with no door between them, the second room is not large—I was at the bar in the next room and Rees stood at

the bar in the other room, I was about as far from him as the farthest juryman—Gunnell came and brought me some ale and said "John, keep your ear open a minute," or words that meant "Take notice"—when Gunnell went back again Rees said to him "You had better come along with me to Mr. Turner"—Gunnell replied "What have I got to do with Mr. Turner, if you want to go to Mr. Turner go yourself"—at that time Thomas came in, and Gunnell said to Bees "There is the man, he can speak for himself"—Rees said when Thomas came in "You promised me 2,000l.,"I am not quite certain whether it was 3,000l. Or not—Thomas said "You are a liar"—Rees said "You promised myself I will have it if I have the shirt off your back, if I go to gaol for it"—Thomas and Rees then went away.

By theJURY. I was not in Gunnell's employment, I am a labourer. THOMAS and NASH— GUILTY .— Fifteen Years' Penal Servitude each , GUNNELL— NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18841117-63

63. EDWARD GUNNELL was again indicted for unlawfully conspiring with Thomas and Nash to utter and dispose of the said will. Upon this indictment no evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

ESSEX CASES.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18841117-64

64. SARAH GODSELL (17) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. LLOYDProsecuted.

THOMAS LARKIN . I am the son of Joseph Larkin, who is a green-grocer at 108, Lilliput Road, Canning Town—on Saturday, 18th October, about 5.30, the prisoner came in for potatoes and greens—I let her have the potatoes, and she gave me in payment this florin (produced), which I gave to my mother—she gave me the change, and I gave it to the prisoner—the coin was not put in the till—my father saw it.

ELIZABETH LARKIN . I am Joseph Larkin's wife, and live at 108, Lilliput Road—on 18th October I was in the shop about 6 o'clock, when the prisoner came in for 2lb. of potatoes—she handed this two-shilling piece to my little boy, and he to me, and I gave him the change, which he handed to her—I put the coin by the side of the little tin box we keep our money in—there were a shilling and sixpence in the box, but no half-crown or two-shilling pieces—I suppose this is the same coin.

JOSEPH LARKIN . On 18th October I went to the box where our silver is kept, and found a florin—I marked it with a little 8—I identify this—on 24th October, about half-past 10 or 11 in the morning, the prisoner came again to our shop—I knew her in a moment; she used to play music outside the door—I had not seen her on the 18th—in consequence of something my son told me my attention was drawn to her—I served her with things to the value of 5d.—she gave me this half-crown—I gave her change, two shillings and a penny—when I found it was bad I communicated with the police, and gave Inspector Dicker both coins.

Croats-examined by the Prisoner. I did not tell you it was bad—I said to my son "We will wait and see if she fetches another one."

KATE AVER . I am the wife of William James Aver, a butcher at 81, Rathbone Street, Canning Town—on Saturday, November 1st, about

half-past 9 p.m., the prisoner came in and asked for a quarter of a pound of suet—I served her; it came to 2d.; she gave me this two-shilling piece (produced)—I gave her change, and then said it looked rather black, and she gave me a good half-crown, which I took, and gave her two separate shillings and 4d. change—my husband said he would detain the two-shilling piece, and if she wanted to know more about it she could send her husband—the prisoner said nothing, but took the two shillings and 4d. and went out—the florin was left on the desk, and after-wards handed to the police.

WILLIAM JAMES AVER . About 9.30 on It November the prisoner came in, and I heard her ask for the suet and saw my wife serve her, and I saw her give this florin to my wife, who passed it to me—I immediately detected it was bad, and told the prisoner it was bad, and mat from information I had received I expected it—I immediately went to the door, but could not see her husband, and I detained the two-shilling piece—she said she had got it from a grocer's close by, Johnson's, in change for a half-sovereign—there is such a grocer; I did not go there—she paid with a good half-crown—I handed this coin to Constable Williams—the husband came into the shop at 12 at night—the constable was then outside, and I called him in and gave the prisoner into custody—I have known them for some time; they are street musicians, he plays the fiddle and she accompanies him on the guitar.

JOHN WILLIAMS (Policeman K 59). On 1st November, at 12 at night, I was on duty in Rathbone Street, Canning Town—Aver made a communication to me, in consequence of which I stopped the prisoner and told her she was accused of tendering a counterfeit two-shilling piece to Mr. Aver, the butcher—she replied "I am not supposed to know it was bad; I got it from Mr. Johnson, a grocer in Victoria Dock Road, in change for half a sovereign"—I said "Have you been to see Mr. Johnson respecting it?"—she replied, "Yes, and he told me I did not have it there"—I said, "Give me all the money you have in your purse"—she gave me this purse (produced) containing two half-crowns, two shillings, 8 1/2 d. bronze, all good, and a pawn-ticket—I took her to the station—she was charged and made no reply—she was searched by the female searcher; nothing was found.

By theCOURT. It was tendered at half-past nine, but I took her at 12—she came with her husband at closing time.

FREDERICK DICKER . On the 25th October I received this bad half-crown and florin from Mr. Larkin—he marked them in my presence, and I have had them in my possession ever since.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am Examiner of Coins to Her Majesty's Mint—these two florins and one half-crown are all bad—the two florins are from the same mould.

The prisoner in her defence stated that if anybody had given the coins to her it must have been her husband; that she went to Johnson's to get some butter and eggs, and that she would not have gone into the shop if she had known the coins were bad. She received a good character from her grandmother.

GUILTYon the last Count. Recommended to mercy by the Jury, believing she did it under the coercion of her husband. — Two Months' without Hard Labour.

66. GEORGE CHANDLER (25) , Unlawfully obtaining by false pretences 4s. from Joseph John Brett. Other Counts for obtaining money from other persons.

MR. HORACE AVORYProsecuted.

JOSEPH JOHN BRETT . I live at 59, Alvington Crescent, Kingsland, and am a City missionary—on Friday, 22nd January last, about six in the evening, the prisoner called on me—I thought I had known him before—he gave the name of George Austin—he said he had just come out of prison, I believe he said the day before, having been sentenced to six months' for taking part in a watch robbery on London Fields—he said the chaplain, Mr. Horsley, had been talking to him, and had advised him to see Mr. Thomas Jackson, of Wellclose Square, East London, who was a City missionary to thieves, but he had not seen Mr. Jackson, he being dead, but his son had sent him to me, I being the missionary of that district, where he was going to reside—he said he wanted a small sum of money, 3s. 9d. I believe, to help him to buy newspapers to sell in the streets, and that money he was going to return to me on Sunday nights at my mission hall, when he would report himself to me for six months, so that I could give him a character to get a place with—I believed the statement that he made, and advanced him 4s.—he went away with the money—I never saw him again till I saw him in custody at Greenwich Police-court about a month ago—I never received any of the money back.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You told me that Mr. Horsley had sent you to Mr. Jackson—you said nothing about emigration to me—you told me the number where you were going to live, which was in my district.

MARY ANN SCRUTTON . I am the wife of Alexander James Scrutton, of 198, Amherst Road, Hackney—on 22nd January, about 4 in the afternoon, the prisoner called at my house to see my husband—he gave the name of George Austin—he said he had come out of prison the day before, that he had been in prison for six months for being connected with a robbery in London Fields of a gold watch and chain from a gentleman—he said Mr. Horsley had recommended him to come to some one and report himself in order that he might lead a better life—he said Mr. Horsley was a chaplain; I can't say that he said where—he said he wanted a start in life—I asked what that meant—he said he should require either 3s. 6d. or 3s. 9d.—that he wished to buy newspapers—he said he would pay it to my husband by instalments on Sundays where he holds a class for young men—believing his statement I advanced him 5s.—I never saw him again till he was in custody.

REV. ST. BARBE SYDENHAM SLADEN . I am curate of Grace-Church, Greenwich, and live at 10, Park Place, East Greenwich—on 4th October,

about 1 o'clock in the day, the prisoner called at my house—he gave the name of George Farmer, and said that he had come for the purpose of reporting himself once a week for three months, and if I would let him in he would tell me his story—I did let him in—I understood him to say that he had lived in our parish for some years past, but he had got into trouble, that he had sold a barrow that was not his own, and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment at Wandsworth Gaol—I understood him to say that he had come out the day before, that he desired to get a fresh start, that he had had a good deal of advice from Mr. Horsley, who, among other things, had recommended him to emigrate; that he saw the emigration agent, and, being obliged to tell him the truth, they would not accept him, but told him that his only chance was to get a three months' character from the clergyman of the parish—I understood him to say that Mr. Horsley was Chaplain of Wandsworth Gaol, but that I can't be certain of—he wanted 3s. 9d., 2s. to get some bloaters with, and 1s. 9d. for the hire of a barrow or basket, and as it was Saturday it was all-important that he should not lose a moment, because Saturday was the costermonger's best day, and he wanted to get to Billingsgate to get the bloaters—I advanced him altogether 3s. 4d.—I believed his statement to be true—he said of his own accord that he would see me each Saturday, and he would like to have a half-hour's conversation—I found in the afternoon that the address he gave was false—I never saw him again till he was in custody.

WILLIAM HENRY TROWER . I am a grocer, of Crescent Road, Plumstead—on 10th October the prisoner came to me in the evening—he gave a name which I believe was Palmer, and said that he had been released from prison the day before, having undergone six months' for being concerned with another man in stealing a portmanteau from the Arsenal Railway Station, that the police being unable to prove anything against him he had got off with that light sentence, but his companion, an old offender, had five years'—he said that while in prison he had been spoken to by the chaplain, Mr. Horsley, who had got him to sign a temperance pledge, and advised him to get away from his companions and go to Manitoba; that acting on that advice he went to the emigration agent, who told him that having been convicted was a bar to his going out, but if he was able to get a three months' character to prove that he was trying to live honestly, they would send him out notwithstanding his having been in prison—he said in order to get this character he would have to work in the neighbourhood, that he was a costermonger, and that he wanted a small start, 3s., 9d., to buy fish and a basket, and a few pence to defray his lodging expenses for the night, and if I would give him that money he should be able to start—I gave him 4s. 6d.—he promised to see me that night week to prove to me that he was actually striving to get an honest living—I never saw him again till he was in custody.

REV. JOHN WILLIAM HORSLEY . I am chaplain of Her Majesty's Prison, Clerkenwell—I know the prisoner—he came into the prison on March 31st, 1882—he was not under me in the prison—he has never been in Clerkenwell Prison as a convicted prisoner—I knew him at the police-court in March, 1882—I was present there when he went to prison—I have never seen him from that time until he was in custody on this charge—it is not true that I sent him to any one; I never send any one

to anybody without a note—I have never been chaplain of Wandsworth Gaol—male prisoners are committed to Wandsworth Gaol.

CHARLES GILHAM . I am gaoler at Woolwich police-court—the prisoner has never been charged there with stealing a portmanteau; if he had been he would not have gone to the Surrey Sessions for trial, he would have come here or to the Kent Sessions.

AUSTIN ASKEW (Police Sergeant R 14). On 14th October last I saw the prisoner on Blackheath Hill on the steps of the Bev. Mr. Gale's house—Mr. Gale opened the door to me—the prisoner was then inside—I asked Mr. Gale if he knew the man—he said "No"—I asked him what his business was, what he was asking from him—he said he had called on him to ask him to write to some influential person for the purpose of assisting him to emigrate to Australia—I asked the prisoner his name—he said "Chandler"—I asked if he knew the rev. gentleman—he said "No"—I asked what he was doing there—he said "I am doing no harm, I am not begging"—I said he answered the description of a man who was wanted by the police, and I took him into custody—he was detained till the Rev. Mr. Sladen arrived and identified him.

Prisoner's Defence. When I went to these people I never told them anything that was untrue. I told them I had been in prison, which was true, and that I knew Mr. Horsley, which was true; and Mr. Horsley, two and a half years ago in the cell at Clerkenwell suggested this to me.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Mr. Horsley stated that he had given evidence against the prisoner two years ago for a similar fraud, and since then he had heard of his doing the same thing all over London.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18841117-67

67. JAMES GALLOWAY (33) , Stealing a hat and 3l. of Daniel Ryan, from his person.

MR. PELLEWProsecuted.

DANIEL RYAN . I live at 39, High Street, Woolwich—on 7th July, between 11 and 12 a.m., I was in the Prince Albert at Woolwich—I had 3l. with me, the silver in one pocket and the gold in the other, both bound in handkerchiefs—I also had a bag; I don't know how much it contained—some men in the house compelled me to take some drink, and I have been told they drugged me; they held me—I remember very little of what took place—I did not recover my senses till next morning—I was then in the police station, and missed my money.

ELIZABETH SMITH . I live at 24, Mill Street, Woolwich—on 7th July I was at the Prince Albert, and Sam Ryan came in with two men named Edwards and the prisoner and a fourth man—I think Ryan had had a little drink, but he knew what he was doing—the prisoner called for a pot of six ale and twopenny worth of rum—he gave the rum to Ryan; the others did not assist him—I turned to the door, but hearing a choking noise I turned round and saw the prisoner holding a glass to Ryan's mouth—he seemed to lose his senses directly—the prisoner then put his hand and took out a small old dirty handkerchief, and the pocket came inside out and a little flannel bag fell on the floor—I picked it up and one of the Edwardses took it from me, and they all ran out, but one of the Edwardses brought back the bag to the door empty—this is it.

in the street as a costermonger—he took a new handkerchief out of Ryan's pocket—the prisoner took Ryan's hat off and put it on his own—they were billycock hats—he left Ryan without a hat—I was as near as I am to you—the prisoner stood with his back to the counter, and Mrs. Freemantle was serving.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. William Edwards offered me a shilling to get some drink and say nothing—he wanted me to go into another public-house; I would not, and he said "Here take a shilling."

JOHN MOMAHON . I am a carpenter, of 17, Powis Street, Woolwich—on 7th July, soon after 11 o'clock, I went to the Prince Albert, and saw the prisoner outside the door—when I went in I heard a scuffle in the next compartment, and heard Mrs. Wheeler call her husband—I went out to go and see what the scuffle was, and saw the prisoner outside the door of the third compartment, with two hats on, one on the top of the other—I pushed open the door, and saw Thomas Edwards strike Ryan and rush past me into the street—the prisoner said "Come along," and I followed them into High Street—shortly before 2 o'clock I saw William Edwards, Thomas Edwards, and the prisoner—William Edwards and the prisoner were fighting—Ryan seemed insensible in the public-house, as if he had been drugged—he could not stand without help—I did not see the prisoner do anything to Ryan.

ELLEN WHEELER . My father keeps the Prince Albert—on 7th July I served the prisoner with a pot of sixpenny ale and twopennyworth of rum—Ryan and the two Edwardses were there—the prisoner gave the rum into Ryan's hand, and they drank the ale between them—I saw them pulling Ryan about—the prisoner seemed to be rifling his pockets whilst the two Edwardses held him, and a little bag like this dropped from his pocket—Mrs. Smith picked it up, and one of the Edwardses snatched it from her and ran out, and the others followed—the bag was returned empty—the prisoner came to the door not five minutes after, with two hats on.

By theCOURT. The others held Ryan while the prisoner put his hand into his pockets—I did not see the prisoner hold a glass to Ryan's mouth.

GEORGE BRENCHLEY (Police Sergeant R). On 7th July, about 11.20, I met the prisoner and Thomas Edwards going in a hurried manner towards Greenwich; the prisoner had two hats on; they had something in their hands which they were sharing—I was palled to the Prince Albert, and saw Ryan without a hat, and in a stupid state, as if he had been drugged—William Edwards and Ogilvie were with him—Ogilvie and the two Edwardses were convicted at Woolwich Police-court about a week after—I took Ryan to the station and charged him with being drunk and in-capable—he was insensible up to 12 o'clock that night—he had no money on him—I took the other three men next night, but the prisoner absconded—the Edwardses got three months, and came out of prison at the time the prisoner was arrested.

WILLIAM LOCOCK (Policeman R 202). On 25th October, about 4.14, I I saw the prisoner at the Bell public-house, Woolwich, and took him to the station—when the charge was read to him he said "I was with the prosecutor at the Crown and Anchor about 9 o'clock in the morning; he put a sovereign on the counter; I said "Don't change that, I will lend you 5s."

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I know nothing at all about it."

Witness for the Defence.

ELIZABETH GALLOWAY . I am the prisoner's sister-in-law—he is a coal porter—I saw Mr. Edwards on the second day after he came out of prison—they got jangling over the money, and because it was not shared equally between them they got to fighting, and next day Thomas Edwards stopped me in Woolwich and asked how my husband's brother got on, that is the prisoner—I said, "He is remanded for a week"—he said, "What for?"—I said, "Mrs. Wheeler said he had the handkerchief, and Mrs. Smith said he had the base"—Edwards told me he had the handkerchief, and asked me to go to his place, as the prisoner was quite innocent of this case, and he, Edwards, had changed a sovereign at the Prince Albert.

Cross-examined. I did not say before the Magistrate that Edwards said the prisoner was innocent—I was only examined once, that was the first time he was brought up, but I am no scholar, it must have been the second week—I know nothing about it beyond what Edwards told me.

The prisoner in his defence stated that he drank with the prosecutor and the other men, and went out at the back, and when he returned Ryan had gone, and that he knew nothing of the robbery, and that Ryan had brandy-and-water in the Crown and Anchor.

GUILTY .**— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18841117-68

68. WILLIAM NEWPORT and HENRY WINN were indicted for publishing a libel on Frederic Trimm.

MR. BESLEYProsecuted; MR. GRAINappeared for Newport.

During the trial a consultation took place, and with the consent of Counsel on both sides the Jury were discharged without giving a verdict.

Reference Number: t18841117-69

69. CHARLES HILLS TOWNS (36) , Embezzling the sum of 1l. 9s. 4d. received by him on account of Mr. Newton his master.

MR. F. FULTONProsecuted; MR. KEITH FRITHDefended.

WALTER NEWTON . I am a draper, of 168, Trafalgar Road, East geenwich—the prisoner was my manager and first salesman on 21st October, and had been filling that position for two months—when my salesmen make a sale to a customer in business or out I provide each of them with a book which contains an invoice with my name, and that is filled in and given to the customer; they are numbered, and on the other side is a corresponding duplicate which is also filled in, and the two are torn out together and taken to the cashier at once—this is the prisoner's book (produced); it has the name of Towns on it in his handwriting—this is the duplicate I spoke of—he has never accounted to me for the sum of 1l. 9s. 4d. for cashmere sold to Mrs. Lyons on 21st October—this is one of my bills in the transaction in question—on the evening of the 21st, from information received, I sent for the police after business hours—he was not charged then; we did not know his address—the following morning he was charged with embezzling 1l. 9s. 4d.—he said he was going to keep the money until he had sold this particular customer more goods, and then he intended handing it over in one large amount—I said I should give him in charge—he then went down on one knee, and put his hands in a praying position, and asked me to forgive him, as he would be a ruined man—this paper, No. 39, was brought to me after business on

Monday evening by Heath, all torn in pieces, and I put it together as it is now—I asked the prisoner before the constable to account for the 39 cheque which was missing, and he said, as I have told you, that he was going to keep the money until he had sold these customers more goods—I did not mention about the cheque being torn up—he said nothing else than what I have repeated—the constable took him in charge.

Cross-examined. His duty was to pay it over immediately—Heath has not to my knowledge received money and not paid it over till next afternoon, it has been brought to me since this case—Heath is the junior hand—only one instance has come to my knowledge, and that at Green-wich Police-court, in which Heath left some money in one of the recesses against the shop fixtures and paid it over next morning, but we held the cheques at the same time—I had not given the prisoner notice to leave, I told him he was not suiting me, and if he did not attend to his duty better than he had been doing, I should have to make a change, no more was said—he gave me notice on the evening preceding this charge—he said he would stay on for 10l. or for any sum providing I got rid of Heath—he has made complaints about Heath to me, and I have communicated them to Heath—it was Heath told me he saw the prisoner tear up the duplicate—the prisoner had been in my employment before, and when he came back he advised me to adopt this particular system of duplicates—after he left me the first time I did not write, and when he called offer him the situation a second time, I am sure of that—I don't think he came in after he left the first time, and said "If I had charge of this business again, I could make it pay well," I should say not—there was a lapse of about eighteen months between his leaving and being employed again—I might have written asking him to call, I believe it was to dress a window—I can swear I did not ask him if he was in earnest about what he said on the previous evening about making the business pay—I made an agreement with him—he came to me and said he was leaving, and I had to wait seven weeks till he could come into the situation—he came to the shop on this morning at his usual hour, nine; immediately he came in I told him to step upstairs, I did not say good morning to him—a detective was waiting outside—I asked him to explain to this gentleman about No. 39 cheque which was missing, he did not pull the money out of his pocket, he did not say "Here is the money, I intended to get another order and make the cheque larger," he said what I have stated previously—I asked him to explain about No. 39 which was missing, and he said "If you get my book you might find it there"—I knew that to be the 39 duplicate that Heath says the prisoner tore up in his presence—he volunteered that statement—I think I sent for the book—he did not look surprised when the book came and the duplicate was not there—I then said I should charge him with embezzling the money, and then he went down on his knees—he did not say he never intended to keep the money permanently—he was excited, the detective was in the room—he said nothing about "I admit having the money, but I never intended to embezzle it."

Re-examined. When I sent for the book in which he said I might find it, and No. 39 had vanished out of it, he made no observation whatever—there is very little in the book now, because part is given to the customer and part filed.

barmaid to Mrs. Lyons—on 21st October the prisoner came in the morning with some patterns for Mrs. Lyons to choose from, and he saw her then—I was there when he returned in the afternoon about three, and Mrs. Lyons gave him the order to bring eight yards of cashmere—he went and returned with eight yards, and she asked him to bring some trimming—I saw him give the cashmere to Mrs. Lyons and his bill, and I saw it receipted and he received 1l. 9s. 4d. in my presence—I gave this bill to the police—there was a slight mistake in the price, and it was altered from 1l. 10s. 1d. to 1l. 19s. 4d.

Cross-examined. Mr. Newton's clerk came in with him when he was trying to effect this sale, so that the transaction appeared perfectly open and above board—the public-house is only two shops from Mr. Newton's—Mr. Newton does not come in, his people do—I have talked to Mrs. Lyons about this, and said that from what I could see and overheard at the police-court all the witnesses appeared to have a spite against this man.

Re-examined. I said that because they all seemed to have a spite against him the day I was at the police-court—that was from the evidence they gave as to what he did and said, and so on—nobody from the shop except the prisoner was present when he brought the cashmere over and received the 1l. 9s. 4d., the other person was only there in the morning when the patterns were brought.

EVELINE HINES . I am Mr. Newton's head assistant on the fancy side—on 21st October he was away, and the prisoner had charge of the business—about ten minutes to twelve he came to me and said he was going to sell a cashmere dress to Mrs. Lyons, and I saw him take some cashmere away and go out of the shop—about four I saw him again, and he told me he had been unable to effect a sale with Mrs. Lyons, as we had not the velvet broche to match—at tea about five he repeated the same tale, and said he was very nearly cutting the length of cashmere off, that Mrs. Lyons would not have it as he had not got the velvet broche to match, and he added she was a very unforgiving woman.

Cross-examined. When he came back before dinner he said he was afraid he would not bo able to effect a sale as he had not got the velvet to match, and that he was taking the goods out to sell—it was done quite openly—I have had words with him on one occasion about matters of discipline—I was present on one or two occasions when he complained strongly and severely about Heath to Mr. Newton.

Re-examined. Just after the prisoner came back to Mr. Newton's after a customer had gone out to whom I could not sell some lace he said he would make it warm for me, and I said I was not afraid of him.

EMILY BROWN . I am in Mr. Newton's employment—I dissect the counterfoils given in with the cash and draw up the amounts, and see whether they correspond with the slips—dissecting means putting different goods to the credit of different departments—this is the book the prisoner had—on 21st October, between half-past three and four, the prisoner told me. he had given two cheques to a customer by mistake, and that I should find No. 39 missing in the morning—if goods have been sold it would have been his duty to hand in that counterfoil to the cashier, and it would have come into my hands next morning when I dissected—I heard the prisoner say to Miss Hines that he did not think he could sell the dress to Mrs. Lyons as there was only a yard and a

quarter of velveteen, and she wanted four yards—there is a youth Heath in the employment—I saw him that afternoon pick up some papers off the floor from behind the counter, and I saw him put them in the small pocket of his coat—I could not identify them at all.

Cross-examined. I was at the police-court twice, but only gave evidence once—I made a mistake before when I said that the prisoner instituted this system of duplicate cheques—I have not heard what the prosecutor said—I have heard him speaking to Mr. Newton about it, and also one of the others—before he came there were no duplicates, but we entered the amount on small cheques and balanced the money with the cheques—the prisoner would have a particular place to keep his book in the same as the rest—it would not be lying about the shop as a rule—I suppose he would put it anywhere he liked on his side—his name was written in it—I was not present when he charged Heath with stealing—when Heath picked up these pieces of paper he only said "I am going to have a look at these" as he put them in his pocket—it is an uncommon thing for bits of paper of that kind to be behind the counter—I never destroy a duplicate—if I make a mistake it is made void by the prisoner or Mr. Newton—the prisoner would have a right to make void a duplicate—he openly told me to make 39 void as he had given it by mistake to a customer—that was in Heath's presence—I don't know if he was listening—I don't think I told Mr. Newton at first I had seen Heath pick up the pieces of paper—I did the following morning—I have seen pieces of paper thrown down behind the counter before—I can't say how many pieces he picked up—this was about four; I can't fix the time—I have heard the prisoner talking to Mr. Newton about the discipline of the shop—he may have fined me; I think only once—I don't know if he told Mr. Newton he had fined me—he has spoken about Heath to Mr. Newton—I don't know what he has said—I think he has made complaints about him.

Re-examined. He said No. 39 would be missing in the morning.

FREDERICK HEATH . I am an assistant to Mr. Newton—between 3 and 4 on the afternoon of 21st Oct., I saw the prisoner taking some cashmere out of the shop—I saw him come back—I believe he had the goods then—he took out one parcel in white paper and brought a piece of white paper and the parcel, I believe, back with him; I don't know if there were patterns in it as well—when he came back I heard him say to Miss Brown No. 39 would be missing out of his book next morning, because he had given it to a customer by mistake—before that in the afternoon I was standing behind the counter and I saw the prisoner cut off a length of cashmere—shortly after he said that to Miss Brown I saw him come over to the other counter, open his book, take something out, tear it up, and throw it down behind the counter—I picked up the pieces and put them in my pocket; these are they—they were afterwards pasted together by Mr. Newton—I said something to Miss Brown about them.

Cross-examined. I don't think I said before the Magistrate anything about his giving as a reason for tearing up the duplicates that he had given it to a customer—I saw him cut the cashmere off—he would have a right to make void a duplicate—he has complained about me to Mr. Newton several times—one day it was about my breath smelling—I am not sure if he has complained of idleness—I believe he has of inattention to business—he has grumbled at me—he said I picked up a 6d. behind

the counter—a constable was brought in and I was charged with and confessed in my employer's presence to taking the 6d.—the prisoner complained to my employer of that—when he came in I could see he had not paid in any money—I believe he had his duplicate book with him when he came in—I can't remember whether I saw it or not afterwards that afternoon; I might have done—he might very often have been near where I was—there are often bits of torn-up paper lying about on the floor behind the counter—I made some remark to Miss Brown when I picked them up; I don't recollect what it was—I did not hear what she said to-day—I was not surprised at seeing paper on the floor, but I had a suspicion, so I picked it up—I won't be certain if Mr. Newton had come in before he tore them up; I will not swear he had not—I knew it was wrong for him to tear them up—I thought I had better wait till after business and give them to Mr. Newton when the shop was closed—the prisoner was standing at the counter when he tore it up—I knew it was missing and was surprised when I saw him take it out—I did not know what I was going to pick up; I thought that was it.

Re-examined. I had not stolen the 6d., and the prisoner, after seeing Mr. Newton, accused me also of taking 2s., and said I had better confess to one or the other or he would lock me up, and I then said I had taken it because of that, and that I thought it would worry my parents, but I had not stolen my master's 6d.—my master knew it and kept me in his service.

ByMR. KEITH FRITH. Before the prisoner spoke to me about the 6d. he was closeted with Mr. Newton.

EMILY GOLDTHORPE . I am cashier to the prosecutor—no sum of 1l. 9s. 4d. was paid in by the prisoner to me on the afternoon of 21st October for Mrs. Lyons's transaction—he brought me no duplicate numbered 39, or anything of the sort.

Cross-examined. I have been there about two months—previous to that I had no experience as a cashier—I have made several mistakes since I have been there, but never without having somebody to overlook them.

Re-examined. My duty is only to see if the duplicate corresponds with the money.

JOYCE (Detective R). On Wednesday morning, 22nd October, about 9 o'clock, I was at Mr. Newton's shop by direction—the prisoner came upstairs; I asked him if he had sold any goods to Mrs. Lyons—he said "Yes"—I asked him if he had received any money, what he had done with it—he said "I received the money, and was going to keep it until Mrs. Lyons had some more goods, and then pay it in in one account"—he went on his knees and asked to be forgiven, as he would be rained—he was given into custody and taken to the station, where I told him he would be charged with embezzling 1l. 9s. 4d., the property of his master—he said "I am guilty, I am guilty; I am a ruined man"—I searched him and found 1l. 9s. 7d. in his purse—that was all he possessed.

Cross-examined. He did not say at the police-court that on being asked to explain he at once offered the money—he did not offer the money—his words were not "I am certainly guilty of receiving the money, but not of embezzling it"—I told the same story twice over at the police-court—I don't know if my deposition was lost—I had nothing to correct on the second occasion—the prisoner said on the first occasion when cross-examining me "I am guilty of having the money"—my version was that he only said "I am guilty, I am guilty; I am a ruined man."

The prisoner, being allowed to make his own statement to the Jury, said that having sold the cashmere he put the duplicate in his book and the money in his pocket; that as soon as he got to the shop he placed his book carelessly on the counter, and he had to serve some one, and forgot all about the money until he got home, when he laid it on his dressing-table, and that the next morning he said to his landlady "I left that money upstairs which I ought to have paid to Mr. Newton;" and that he quite believed the duplicate would be found in his book; he denied having stated "I am guilty" but asserted that what he said was "I am guilty of receiving the money, but I am not guilty of embezzlement; this will ruin me;" and he admitted having been previously convicted, but said that after that he had had a situation for two years and a splendid character.

Witness for the Defence.

ELLEN ORCHARD . I live at 13, Heston Street, Deptford—the prisoner has been lodging with me for two months up to his arrest, and always conducted himself honestly and respectably in every way—on the morning of his arrest, before he went out, he said to me that he had had a row with Mr. Newton and had to leave his place, that he had had some money the day before and had forgotten to pay it in, and was going to pay it in that morning—the next I heard was that he was in custody, and I then went to the police-court, and was bound never to be here to-day.

Witness in Rely.

DONALD ROBERTSON . I produce the certificate of the prisoner's conviction in July, 1874, at Newcastle-on-Tyne, of unlawfully obtaining money by false pretences, when he was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude—he had previously been twice convicted.

Cross-examined. He would get no remission the first year, but after that he could have deducted a quarter of the whole.

The prisoner received a good character since he had come from penal servitude from Mr. Wheatley, the Secretary of the St. Giles's Christian Mission.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18841117-70

70. ROBERT HOLT , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYDandWILKINSONProsecuted.

ALFRED HAYE . I am barman at the Centurion, Deptford Broadway—on 25th October, between 3 and 4 o'clock, the prisoner came in for twopennyworth of rum, giving me a florin, which I discovered was bad before I took it off the counter—I said "This is the piece you gave me; this is no good"—I bit it in two—he said "Let's look"—I laid one piece on the counter and turned round to my governor, and when I looked round the prisoner was gone—there was no one else in the compartment—I and my governor went and looked out of the door, but could not see anything of him—on the following week I was taken to Woolwich Police station, and picked the prisoner out from seven or eight other men—I had previously given a description of him.

Cross-examined. You had only to open the door—you were standing about a yard and a half from it—we were going to apprehend you.

ARTHUR HENRY COE . I am barman at the South-Eastern Distillery, New Cross Road—on 31st October I was in the bar about 11 a.m., when the prisoner came in for twopennyworth of rum, giving me this florin—I gave him a shilling, sixpence, and 4d. bronze change—I had suspicions

of the florin when I did so, and afterwards showed it to the manager, and we sent King, the potman, after him—he had gone out directly he got the change—he was in the house about three minutes—he drank the rum.

Cross-examined. I had not seen you before that morning; I did then—I was not certain at the time I took it that it was bad, and went to ask the manager about it.

ALFRED KING . I was potman at the South-Eastern Distillery at Deptford on 31st October—I saw the prisoner served about 11 o'clock, as I was going through the bar—I saw no coin pass—soon after he left the barman gave me a bad coin, and said something in consequence of which I followed the prisoner into the Royal Albert, and went for a constable, as they were talking about the two-shilling-piece he had passed there—I found a constable at the corner of High Street, and coming back with him we met the prisoner on the road, and I gave him in charge—he was taken back to the Royal Albert, searched, and 1 1/2 d. was found on him.

Cross-examined. You were apprehended about 30 yards from the Royal Albert.

MARY EMPSON . My father keeps the Royal Albert, Deptford—at five minutes past 11 on the morning of 31st October I was serving at the bar, when the prisoner came in for twopennyworth of rum and gave this florin in payment, which I discovered to be bad—I said "It is a bad one; where did you get it?"—he said "I do not know," and went out when my back was turned—King came in two or three minutes afterwards, and then the constable—King brought the prisoner back, and he was taken away—I gave the florin to the constable.

Cross-examined. You said you were sorry for the mistake when I told you it was a bad one.

ALFRED ATTREE (Policeman R 318). The Distillery is about three minutes' walk from the Royal Albert—a little after 11 on the morning of 31st October King spoke to me, in consequence of which I went in search of the prisoner, and found him about 20 yards from the Royal Albert, going towards Deptford—I said to him "You have been passing bad money"—he said "No, not me"—I said "You will have to go back with me"—I was about to take him back to the Distillery when Ernest Collard came up and spoke to me, and I then took the prisoner to the Royal Albert—the last witness gave me this bad florin which I have produced—I asked the prisoner how he came by the money—he said he had it given him for doing a job of work yesterday—he did not say where—I took him to the station and searched him, and found 1 1/2 d. on him.

Cross-examined. The Royal Albert is 20 yards from where you were apprehended.

ERNEST COLLARD . I am a baker, and live at Greenwich—on 31st October, about 11, I was in the Distillery having a glass of ale, when the prisoner came in for twopennyworth of rum—after he went out the barman found it was a bad coin, and I followed him with Kong—I saw him go into the Royal Albert, and detained him there till King fetched the constable—he was quiet when I detained him, and argued with the landlady about the coin, and then five fellows came in, and he said to them "This man charges me with passing bad money," and they said "You had better missle off; old man," then he went out, and I followed him till I met the constable and potman.

72. WILLIAM JOSEPH LANGFORD (39) and AUGUSTA WILSON (35) , Stealing a watch, the property of Alice Lanson, to which

WILSON PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. WILKINSONProsecuted.

ALICE LAUSON . I reside at 80, Ormside Street, Old Kent Road—the female prisoner is my daughter—the prisoner Langford had been living with her as her husband—on the 11th of this month, about 6 o'clock in the evening, my daughter was at my house—I had a gold watch then; it was hanging up on a hook over the mantelpiece—I missed it directly after she had gone—I had seen it safe at a quarter to 4 o'clock on that afternoon; this is it (produced)—I value it at 10l.

FREDERICK RICHARD PRESTCOTT . I am assistant at Rogers and Co.'s, pawnbrokers, 185, Walworth Road—I produce a watch pledged on the first occasion on 11th November, by the prisoner Langford, in the name of William Wilson, for 2l.—he came again on 3rd November with the female prisoner; he said he had come to get a declaration on his watch, as he had lost his ticket—he said it was his own watch, a family relic—in consequence of that I made out a declaration, which he took away, and brought back and received a new ticket.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You went outside and said you would ask your wife whether you should take the 2l. which I offered or not, and you came back and said "I had better have the money."

GEORGE PURBROOK (Police Sergeant R). I arrested the prisoners—Wilson said in Langford's presence "I stole the watch, Langford was waiting at the top of the street; he pawned it the same evening in the Walworth Road"—Langford said "That is quite right."

ALFRED MARSDEN (Policeman R 41). I took Langford in charge—he said "She stole the watch and gave it to me, and I pawned it for 2l."—he gave me the ticket, which I produce.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "She handed me the watch and I pawned it; she had the money and bought herself some clothes with it. She told me her mother had given her the watch to pawn to raise the wind so as she could get some clothes and look after a respectable situation."

Witness for Langford.

AUGUSTA WILSON (The Prisoner). I have been living with the prisoner—I didn't say anything to him about the watch before I got it; when I got it I took it to him at the top of the street and gave it to him—I told

him mother had lent it to me, and would he pawn it, as I wanted to get some better clothes to get a situation; he did pawn it, and I stood outside—I lost the ticket.

LANGFORD— NOT GUILTY . WILSON— Two Months' Hard Labour.

SURREY CASES.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18841117-73

73. FREDERICK YOUNG (24) and CHARLES RANDALL (50) were indicted for unlawfully obtaining goods by false pretences from various persons, and also for conspiring with others not in custody to defraud.

MESSRS. POLANDandMONTAGU WILLIAMSProsecuted.

FRANCIS HENRY TURNER . I am managing clerk to Messrs. Coulthurst and Harding, of the Phoenix Colour Works, Temple Gate, Bristol—in January last I received this order from Frederick Young. (This was an order from F. Young, wholesale and retail oil and colour Italian warehouse, Melbourne Grove, Champion Rood, Battersea, for paints and other articles.) We supplied these goods—I next received an order for 5 cwt. of white lead, which I also supplied on the 2nd February—I afterwards received on the 8th February this order for varnishes—I sent those goods—I then received an order for a barrel of petroleum and a barrel of gasoline, signed "A. Young, pro F. Young"—I did not send that—the goods altogether that I sent amounted to 18l.—I believed this F. Young was carrying on a genuine business.

Cross-examined by Young. I received the first order through the post-office—I had a traveller named Spurgeon—I did not receive the first order through him—I didn't see the goods delivered, but I have the carrier's signature for the three parcels.

JAMES DENNIS . I am a ropemaker, of 39, Wandsworth Road—I supplied goods to Young, of Champion Hill, upon an order brought by a traveller—I handed that order to the solicitor—I supplied clothes-lines and box-cord to Young, amounting to 7l. 8s. 6a.—the terms were cash on delivery—I have not received it—I applied for payment, and received this letter, signed F. Young, stating that he would call on the earliest opportunity to settle—I received this receipt, dated 31st January, for the goods, signed "A. Young."

Cross-examined by Young. My traveller is not here—you came to my shop on the Tuesday following, and asked for a longer time—I said I shouldn't give it.

FREDERICK HALL . I am carman to Mr. Dennis—I delivered the goods to Young, of Champion Hill, and received this receipt—Young signed it in my presence.

ALFRED WILLIAM HODSON . I represent Bowley and Sons, oil merchants, of Wellington Works, Battersea—on 18th January, and on 23rd January and 4th February, we supplied goods to F. Young, of Melbourne Grove, Champion Hill, amounting to 2l. 17s. 9d., 5l. 8s., and 2l. 3s. respectively—I produce the carman's receipts for the delivery of the goods—I have applied for the money several times, but I could not get it—I believed the business to be a bona fide one—we sued for the amount, and judgment went by default.

Cross-examined by Young. The order was taken through our traveller—we received no references, but we have received nine or ten inquiries in consequence of you making use of our name without authority as a reference.

JOSEPH DUNK . I am a carman to Messrs. Bowley—I delivered the goods in question on three occasions to Young, of Champion Hill, and I produce the receipts in my book for the delivery.

Cross-examined by Young. I did not see the book signed; it was signed in a back room.

FRANK NEEDHAM . I am traveller to W.G. Clark and Sons, biscuit manufacturers, of Thompson Street, Limehouse—in February last I received this order from F. Young, of Melbourne Grove, for 2 cwt. of buffalo dog biscuits—I forwarded them to the amount of 1l. 6s., and received this receipt for the delivery, signed "E. Young"—on 21st February a gentleman called, who represented himself to be Mr. Young, not either of the prisoners—he gave me a verbal order for 5 cwt. of biscuits, amounting to 3l. 5s., and paid the first order of 1l. 6s.—he signed this receipt "Arthur Young," and took away the 5 cwt. with him—that order was not paid for—on the 12th March I received a further order for 5 cwt. of biscuits, signed "F. Young"—I did not execute that order—on 17th March I received this card. (This was headed "Elm Park Stores, J. Smart, Proprietor Agent, &c. "Being just about to open business I have had your dog biscuit strongly recommended. Please forward 2 cwt. as sample; also showcards. Yours truly, J. Smart.")—I wrote to Mr. Smart for reference, and he gave Mr. Young as a reference—I did not send the goods—we thought Young's reference insufficient.

THOMAS IMESON . I live at 145, Dulwich Road, and am a commission agent and traveller—I sell on commission for Garnham Brothers, of 163, High Street, Peckham—on 22nd February I called at Melbourne Grove, Champion Hill, at a shop with the name of F. Young over it, it appeared to be an oil shop—I saw the prisoner Young there and asked him to give me an order—he said he could do with five hundredweight of biscuits and he would pay cash for them—he gave me this billhead with the name of F. Young on it; the goods were sent by Mr. Garnham—on 10th March I called and saw Young, and he gave me a further order for five hundredweight of biscuits and other goods amounting to 8l. 8s. 9d., I believe they were delivered—I told the prisoner that unless he paid the first order the second would not be delivered, and he said he would call round and pay Mr. Garnham—I afterwards called for payment, I did not see the prisoner again, I saw a younger man—I got no money.

Cross-examined by Young. I saw you when I first called, I am sure of that—the shop was open and it looked as if it had plenty of stock in it.

EDWARD CHARLES GARNAHAM . I am a corn-chandler, of 165, High Street, Peckham—on 26th January I received these orders from Imeson—I supplied five hundredweight of biscuits at 12s. per hundredweight—they were paid for on 11th March—on 10th March Imeson brought me a second order—on the 11th Young called and said he had given an order to our traveller for another lot of goods which he wanted executed as soon as possible—I sent them—I was not paid for those—I called several times, I saw a man who represented himself as Young's brother—I saw F. Young once, and I said "I have called for your account"—he said "No, not me"—the goods were supplied in the ordinary way of trade—

I believed the firm was a genuine one from the appearance of the place—on 27th March Randall called on me and asked the price of dogs' biscuits—I told him 12s. per hundredweight, and he said "Send me five hundredweight"—he gave me this card headed "Elm Park Stores, 74, Elm Park, Brixton, Mr. J. Smart, proprietor"—I said "We don't know these people, do they pay cash?"—he said "Yes, and if there is no one there of course you will leave them and the cash will be forwarded on"—I said "No, if they want credit they must give satisfactory references," and I heard nothing more from them.

Cross-examined by Young. When you paid me for the first lot of goods I did not give you terms for the others, I said nothing about terms—you told me that my traveller had agreed to give you a month's credit, and I said "Well then I will not call for a month."

Cross-examined by Randall. You told me that Mr. Smart had sent you to ask for the price of the biscuits, and I told you that cash for the first order and after that On terms; I said "Unless we hear from you we shall not excuse it"—I did not say "Shall I send 5 cwt. on approbation?"

CHARLES KING I am carman to Mr. Garnham—I delivered 5 cwt. of biscuits at Melbourne Grove.

Cross-examined by Young. The goods were received by A. Young, not by you, I think.

WILLIAM BYFORD . I am an oilman, of Maxtead Road, Peckham—in March last Young called and ordered some goods, and offered me 2 cwt. of biscuits, which I agreed to take at 10s. 6d. per cwt.—I had been dealing with Mr. Garnham, and that was 1s. per cwt. less than Mr. Garnham—Young called on me again and asked me if I wanted to buy more goods, I refused—Randall came to my place in February for oil—I knew from a man I bought varnishes of that he was coming—Randall said the oil was for Mr. Young, of Melbourne Grove.

Cross-examined by Randall. You paid for the oil.

EDWARD MANNING . I am traveller for Messrs. Anderson, of 10, London Street, Fenchurch Street, felt manufacturers—on 14th March I supplied goods to Young, of Champion Hill; this is the delivery note (produced) for twelve rolls, signed "A. Young"—the amount was about 10l.—on 25th March I again delivered goods, this is the delivery note signed "M. Young"—I believed the business to be a genuine one, and on that I supplied the goods—on 19th March I received this letter signed "J. Smart," stating that he was recommended to us by Young, of Champion Hill and ordering ten rolls of roping, I did not supply it—I went to Elm Park Stores, and found no business going on there; I referred to Young, who said he had known him for some years, and had done a little business with him, giving him credit for 2l. or 3l., and he had always paid him; this card was in the letter.

Cross-examined by Young. I don't think anything was said about terms. I said I could not give long discount—Smart did not refer to you, I merely asked him what he knew of you.

WILLIAM LADSLEY . I am carman to John Smothers and Sons, of Lower East Smithfield—I delivered the goods from Messrs. Anderson, and to the best of my belief saw the prisoner Young sign the name of A. Young.

Bermondsey—I delivered the second parcel of goods from Messrs. Anderson to Young—the delivery note was signed by a female.

MARIA LOUISA WALTERS . I am the wife of George Walters, of Church Street, Camberwell, a pianoforte manufacturer, he is ill—on 19th March our traveller Beard brought the prisoner Young and another man, he introduced them to me as the two Youngs, they selected a black and gold piano at the price of thirty-six guineas—they gave their address at Melbourne Grove, Champion Hill; they said they kept an oil shop—I agreed to let the piano out on the hire system, and this document (produced) was signed by the prisoner Young and the other person who represented to be his brother, as F. Young, 3, Dulwich Terrace, Champion Hill, and Arthur Young, name address—the piano was sent—the prisoner signed "Frederick Young" and the other one "Arthur Young"—we never got our piano back nor yet any money for it—my husband went to that address—he is at home ill—he has not been able to come out since last week—I was at the police-court when he was examined—I saw him sworn and heard him give his evidence, and saw him sign his deposition.

Cross-examined by Young. It was arranged that Mr. Walters should call before we sent the piano, but he did not call; he sent the piano.

(The deposition of George Walters was here put in and read, stating that he sent the piano by Smythe, the carman; that he afterwards called, but found the shop closed.)

HENRY SMYTHE . I am carman to Mr. Walters—on 19th March I delivered a piano at Champion Hill to the prisoner Young—I gave this agreement to him, and he signed it, and his brother signed it.

Cross-examined by Young. I swear positively you signed "Frederick Young."

ALFRED KNIGHT . I live at 90, Villiers Street, Walworth, and am a grocer—I bought a piano of Young after the March quarter—I saw it at his shop at Champion Hill—the name of Young was over the shop—I gave him 12l. for it—he showed me a piece of paper, and said the brokers had sued for rent—I understood the piano was not on hire from what he said to me—it was taken to my premises, and has been claimed by Mr. Walters—I have made some arrangement with him.

Cross-examined by Young. You called at my place on 26th March—I showed you that the broker had distrained on the piano for rent—I don't recollect you first asking me to advance you 12l.; you might have done so—I saw a man in possession there—I brought the 12l. with me, and saw the piano—you paid me the 12l., and I sent you the receipt in the morning.

JAMES FOX . I am clerk to Henry R. Condy, of Battersea, a white lead manufacturer—we had a travelling man named Toby—we supplied through him two quarterns of white lead, value 4l. 13s., to Frederick Young, of Champion Hill, and we received this receipt, signed "A. Young:" I received this postcard, signed "Frederick Young," requesting the lead without fail on Monday—on 7th April I received this other order for five cwt. of lead, value 4l.—on the 10th a man came and fetched it, and gave this receipt, signed "A. Young."

Cross-examined by Young. We received this order through Toby, out traveller—he is not here; we are in search of him—this is not the only order of the kind that we received through him.

WILLIAM EASTER . I am carman to Mr. Condy—I delivered these goods at 5, Melbourne Grove.

Cross-examined by Young. I believe A. Young signed for them—I cannot remember you—I only saw you for two minutes.

GEORGE ALDRIDGE . I am manager to Howard and Co., drysalters, 143, New Kent Road—about four months ago we supplied goods to Frederick Young, of Melbourne Grove, to the amount of 3l. 6s. 6d.—Mr. Welsford is our traveller—our terms are cash on delivery—cash not being paid, on the following Saturday I called at the oil shop in Melbourne Grove—I saw some one; neither of the prisoners—that person made an appointment for the following week—I then saw the prisoner Young—I told him I came after the account, 3l. 6s. 6d.—he said Mr. Young was not in; he would be in next Saturday—I called then and saw the other person—he said Young was not in—I used some strong language, and the prisoner Young then came forward—he said "I am Mr. Young, what have you got to say?"—I said "You might have told me that in the first instance," and I believe I called him a swindler—he did not pay me—I left, and never got any money—while this transaction was going on Randall called at our place, gave me this card, (As before), and ordered some goods amounting to 10l. or 12l.—I asked for a reference, and he gave Mr. Young, of Champion Hill—I did not go there; I told Eandall that Young's reference was hardly good enough, and we did not deliver the goods—while I was at Champion Hill I saw Randall there—he was taking goods away in a small trap—I saw him there four or five times; he was taking away goods more than once.

Cross-examined by Randall. You told me you were manager to Mr. Smart—you did not say anything about terms; you simply gave me the order—I saw you taking away several descriptions of goods; several cwt. of soap for one thing, and a bag of dog biscuits—the soap was not wrapped up—I saw you loading other goods on other occasions, but I am not able to specify what.

Cross-examined by Young. Your order was given through our traveller—he is not here—I did not see the goods delivered.

SAMUEL QUINT . I live at 116, Manor Road, Brockley—I am owner of the shop, 3, Doveridge Terrace, Melbourne Grove, Champion Hill—I let that shop to the prisoner Young from 14th January—he said that he and his brother wished to go into business, that they had got very little money to start with, something about 30l.—I said I would do all I possibly could to assist them—I let them the shop with fixtures and stock—he signed this agreement "Frederick Young," at a rent of 50l. a year—he gave me 5l. in part payment and a promissory note for 25l. signed by the prisoner and Albert Stanley—Stanley came to my place as a reference, and gave his address as 408, Albert Road, Battersea Park Road—he said he knew both the Youngs and their parents, and he thought they were very honest, straightforward young chaps—he called with one of the Youngs—the quarter's rent became due in March—I got 10l. the day after by putting in the brokers, from what the police told me—I went and found they had gone and the door left open—they took away some of the fixtures worth 4l. or 5l., and the stock was all gone.

Cross-examined by Young. You took possession of the place about the middle of January—I put in a distress the day after the rent was due—I

believe it was your brother who called with Stanley—you and your brother were at the place together—I could not swear who took the key—I did not see the agreement signed—the solicitor saw you sign it—I did not see the promissory note signed—I saw you when you made the agreement.

ALFRED DAVIS . I am agent to Mr. Fletcher, who is landlord of 5, Honor Oak Terrace, Forest Hill—I let those premises to a man who gave the name of James Ward under this agreement (produced) at a rent of 26l. a year—to the best of my belief the prisoner Young is the person—he paid a deposit of 1l.—I did not get any rent—I distraine